|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| There's nothing necessarily anti-Federalist in calling for a few Amendments to the Constitution to be passed. We could target the Senate filibuster, overturn Citizens United and outlaw corporate political donations, and clarify the corporate personhood doctrine, while also reasserting that the Commerce Clause restriction means something. |
There is a difference between calling for Amendments and calling for a Constitutional Convention.
I'm sure you remember the first convention was only supposed to tinker with the Articles. They didn't. Experts say that if a new convention were to be called, it would probably be impossible to limit it to specific issues. It is probably why a second one has never been called, and in my view, shouldn't be. The idea of Louie Gohmert having charge of my political fate gives me nightmares.
The Constitution provides a safer way to adopt amendments. I would be in favor of that approach on several of the issues you listed. By the way, it's quite a Progressive list you have. Teddy and Woodrow would be proud.
Both parties used to have progressive, reformist, wings. Maybe someday that will be true again. We certainly need a major reform effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
We are locked in a struggle over the role of government. At some point people have to chose a side. It seems clear to me that when one side risks destruction of the national economy to win their point, then anyone who sits on the sidelines and says, "Now, let's all get along", then they are helping the destructive side. |
Yeah, Krugman said something similar, blaming centrists for complicity because some of them decided not to blame Republicans 100%. You two are partisans.
Obama had over two years to take leadership on the debt. Not only did he stand back, but he dismissed the findings of his own bipartisan commission.
There are two sides that don't want to move forward here. One is just more blatant and militant about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Obama had over two years to take leadership on the debt. Not only did he stand back, but he dismissed the findings of his own bipartisan commission.
There are two sides that don't want to move forward here. One is just more blatant and militant about it. |
Yes, he had two measley years to try to clean up the mess he inherited. He tried to do it with an economic policy that most moderate and liberal economists endorse. It is hardly controversial to attempt to stimulate the economy during a depression, and that means deficits. I think I remember you saying the stimulus wasn't big enough.
Yes, he dismissed the results of a committee that failed to meet its own rules. Only 11 of the 18 agreed, not the 14 that was supposed to happen. Second, even S & P started out saying 3-5 years was soon enough to start a long term plan. Polls say the public is focused on jobs, not the debt (at something like 2-1). (The debt will look a lot less intimidating when we rescind the Bush tax cuts and get people back to work.) I don't know how you can say Obama didn't try to move forward--he offered concession after concession.
There's a site where the regular posters call the tendency for people to cast 'a pox on both your houses' the magic balance fairy. She raises her ugly little head in the media all the time. It operates to shield the right from their appalling policies. It's of a piece where no one has mentioned that silly 'law' where the first to mention Hitler loses: the law was suspended as soon as Obama came into office.
This is the Tea Party Downgrade (as Kerry called it the other day) and if we do go back into recession, it will be the Tea Party Recession.
(The KOSPI is down another 3.5% at lunch time Monday) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Obama had over two years to take leadership on the debt. Not only did he stand back, but he dismissed the findings of his own bipartisan commission.
There are two sides that don't want to move forward here. One is just more blatant and militant about it. |
Yes, he had two measley years to try to clean up the mess he inherited. He tried to do it with an economic policy that most moderate and liberal economists endorse. It is hardly controversial to attempt to stimulate the economy during a depression, and that means deficits. I think I remember you saying the stimulus wasn't big enough. |
You misremember. Although I have criticized the tax credits and the Republican portions of the Stimulus.
I notice you touch upon the Stimulus but have nothing to say about Simpson-Bowles. I'm telling you that if he had accepted Simpson-Bowles back in late 2010 he would have preempted the Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
(What are you doing up in the middle of the night? I wrote hastily at lunch time and planned to revise...now I can't.)
Anyway...
There was a time when conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Even now, the Tea Partiers say if you get sick, it's your own tough luck and if you lose your job you're on your own (hurray for personal responsibility)--but when they drive the world to question our political will to pay our debts...well, that's not their fault, that's all Obama's doing. I smell rotten hypocrisy here of the foulest kind.
[KOSPI down 3.82% at 3:30. I wonder if this is any indication of what will happen on Wall Street in a few hours.]
Actually, I did mention S-B:
| Quote: |
| Yes, he dismissed the results of a committee that failed to meet its own rules. Only 11 of the 18 agreed, not the 14 that was supposed to happen. |
In addition to the failure to find agreement among themselves, I consider them to be of very dubious legality anyway. We already have a Congress and we pay it reasonably well to govern us. I am offended that one party has determined to block the action of Congress where there is some semblance of democracy and representation, and then substitute an unelected body where both parties are represented equally, no matter what the public elected. I guess I'm just an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud conservative. (I'm beginning to question your conservative bona fides what with calls for constitutional conventions and extra-constitutional bodies...)
Anyway, I reject the politics of fear and say again that there is plenty of time to work on long term debt reduction after the economy is on the mend. Unfortunately, S & P's actions will almost certainly cement debt reduction as the central issue, rather than getting people back to work. I guess that is what Wall Street wants...protect their gold-plated lifestyle at the expense of regular people. Nothing new there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| but when they drive the world to question our political will to pay our debts...well, that's not their fault, that's all Obama's doing. I smell rotten hypocrisy here of the foulest kind. |
Um, it's not "our debt" any more than the Iceland debt belongs to the Icelandic people or Greek debt belongs to the Greek people. It doesn't. No, the cause of all these problems is banker debt. The black hole of derivatives that they fraudulently created. It has only become "our" debt because Obama and other corrupt leaders have signed onto it, putting the public on the hook. Now they want to put all these austerity measures into place, just so Obama's slimball banker friends at Goldman-Sachs can keep giving themselves record bonuses.
Seriously, what part of this don't you understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Actually, I did mention S-B:
| Quote: |
| Yes, he dismissed the results of a committee that failed to meet its own rules. Only 11 of the 18 agreed, not the 14 that was supposed to happen. |
In addition to the failure to find agreement among themselves, I consider them to be of very dubious legality anyway. We already have a Congress and we pay it reasonably well to govern us. |
Please. Congress would have still had to vote on it. Its normal for a bill to go through committee and then even have it be voted on there before it is released for votes in each chamber.
Have you read the Bowles-Simpsons recommendations? They're quite good. But liberals didn't like it because it was a compromise.
Look, Obama and the Democrats played games with the debt ceiling. If the Democrats hadn't, I probably would be siding with them. But its the same Washington game: mortgaging long-term credibility for short-term ephemeral gain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Please. Congress would have still had to vote on it. Its normal for a bill to go through committee and then even have it be voted on there before it is released for votes in each chamber.
Have you read the Bowles-Simpsons recommendations? They're quite good. But liberals didn't like it because it was a compromise.
Look, Obama and the Democrats played games with the debt ceiling. If the Democrats hadn't, I probably would be siding with them. But its the same Washington game: mortgaging long-term credibility for short-term ephemeral gain. |
Piffleschnitz!
You probably like S-B because the government outsourced their responsibility. Why don't we just let any random group of people write up bills and insist on Congress voting them up or down, then Congress won't have to actually earn their keep?
I probably shouldn't even dignify the second bit with a reply...The Dems rejected it because it was a compromise? Have you been paying any attention at all for the last 2 1/2 years? Dems won't compromise? Someone is sneaking Tea Bagger kool aide into your Cheerios.
You fell for the Tea Party hysteria about solving a long term problem NOW and are defending their radical stance because of their small government obsession. The credibility of the country's willingness to make good on its debts has been called into question for the first time in history thanks to the radical right. The only 'exceptionalism' that fits the US is that we are the only country to voluntarily risk our credibility for an insane ideology.
Had the Reagan Revolution been honest conservatives, they would have said, "America, these social programs you seem to want will cost you $X. We will now use our power to increase taxes so they are paid for." But is that what they did? No, because they were not true conservatives. They were radicals who have wanted all along to impose right wing social engineering on people who don't want it in order to create their fantasy world.
Typical conservative who makes $250,000/year: "They want me to pay $30 of each additional $1,000. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I'm going to sit in the corner, stick my thumb in my mouth and stop working because I have no reason to go on. $970 is not enough of an incentive. Life sucks." Much gnashing of teeth ensues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Typical conservative who makes $250,000/year: "They want me to pay $30 of each additional $1,000. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I'm going to sit in the corner, stick my thumb in my mouth and stop working because I have no reason to go on. $970 is not enough of an incentive. Life sucks." Much gnashing of teeth ensues. |
$30 of each $1000 dollars (on top of inflation) to pay for Obama's illegal wars and bank bail-outs for his Goldman-Sachs posse is already a horrible enough prospect, but I believe you are the guy who was earlier saying 90% taxes for "rich" people would be reasonable?  What a load of crap. If they didn't have the force of violence on their side, nobody would pay a dime to our corrupt blood-sucking criminal government (who are tax exempt btw, and all their income comes from taxation even though they contribute nothing good to the world). Income tax is nothing more than THEFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Please. Congress would have still had to vote on it. Its normal for a bill to go through committee and then even have it be voted on there before it is released for votes in each chamber.
Have you read the Bowles-Simpsons recommendations? They're quite good. But liberals didn't like it because it was a compromise.
Look, Obama and the Democrats played games with the debt ceiling. If the Democrats hadn't, I probably would be siding with them. But its the same Washington game: mortgaging long-term credibility for short-term ephemeral gain. |
Piffleschnitz!
You probably like S-B because the government outsourced their responsibility. Why don't we just let any random group of people write up bills and insist on Congress voting them up or down, then Congress won't have to actually earn their keep?
I probably shouldn't even dignify the second bit with a reply...The Dems rejected it because it was a compromise? Have you been paying any attention at all for the last 2 1/2 years? Dems won't compromise? Someone is sneaking Tea Bagger kool aide into your Cheerios.
You fell for the Tea Party hysteria about solving a long term problem NOW and are defending their radical stance because of their small government obsession. The credibility of the country's willingness to make good on its debts has been called into question for the first time in history thanks to the radical right. The only 'exceptionalism' that fits the US is that we are the only country to voluntarily risk our credibility for an insane ideology.
Had the Reagan Revolution been honest conservatives, they would have said, "America, these social programs you seem to want will cost you $X. We will now use our power to increase taxes so they are paid for." But is that what they did? No, because they were not true conservatives. They were radicals who have wanted all along to impose right wing social engineering on people who don't want it in order to create their fantasy world.
Typical conservative who makes $250,000/year: "They want me to pay $30 of each additional $1,000. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I'm going to sit in the corner, stick my thumb in my mouth and stop working because I have no reason to go on. $970 is not enough of an incentive. Life sucks." Much gnashing of teeth ensues. |
I didn't say Democrats rejected it because it was a compromise. I said liberals rejected it because it was a compromise. Democrats didn't really get an opportunity to reject it, because Obama abandoned the commission.
Anyway, no, I don't buy into Tea Party dogma. That's absurd. If you could visit my email inbox sometime, you'd see I get regular fiscal updates from the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. I've been concerned about the Federal debt before the Tea Party was anything more than a historical event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I didn't say Democrats rejected it because it was a compromise. I said liberals rejected it because it was a compromise. Democrats didn't really get an opportunity to reject it, because Obama abandoned the commission.
Anyway, no, I don't buy into Tea Party dogma. That's absurd. If you could visit my email inbox sometime, you'd see I get regular fiscal updates from the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. I've been concerned about the Federal debt before the Tea Party was anything more than a historical event. |
I don't draw the sharp distinction between Democrats and liberals that you seem to see; I have to struggle to make one in posts refering to the right because some guys get all hyper if I don't.
No, I know you have long been very commited to the debt issue. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I was refering to what I perceive as your agreement on small government and states rights. (And no, I don't think you are a bomb-throwing radical Tea Partier.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At the heart of ALL of this is that campaigns are financed by special interest. That's the ultimate source of ALL the problems and why there is gridlock, etc.
Its foolhardy to expect the pols to generally vote for things that are against the wishes of the groups that contribute to their campaigns.
NOTHING meaningful can or will happen until that changes. The pols use the 'right of free speech' argument to keep the money flowing. Maybe not allowing special interest to give them all their money is a violation of the free speech clause? All I know is nothing substantive can be done until that changes or its too late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
At the heart of ALL of this is that campaigns are financed by special interest. That's the ultimate source of ALL the problems and why there is gridlock, etc.
Its foolhardy to expect the pols to generally vote for things that are against the wishes of the groups that contribute to their campaigns.
NOTHING meaningful can or will happen until that changes. The pols use the 'right of free speech' argument to keep the money flowing. Maybe not allowing special interest to give them all their money is a violation of the free speech clause? All I know is nothing substantive can be done until that changes or its too late. |
A good illustration of this occured last night in Wisconsin. Something in the neighborhood of $30 million was spent to keep/win 6 state senate seats...in rural counties. (I guess one was suburban, but the others would be rural by anyone's calculation.)
Money talks. It doesn't say everything, but it does talk very loud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
At the heart of ALL of this is that campaigns are financed by special interest. That's the ultimate source of ALL the problems and why there is gridlock, etc.
Its foolhardy to expect the pols to generally vote for things that are against the wishes of the groups that contribute to their campaigns.
NOTHING meaningful can or will happen until that changes. The pols use the 'right of free speech' argument to keep the money flowing. Maybe not allowing special interest to give them all their money is a violation of the free speech clause? All I know is nothing substantive can be done until that changes or its too late. |
A good illustration of this occured last night in Wisconsin. Something in the neighborhood of $30 million was spent to keep/win 6 state senate seats...in rural counties. (I guess one was suburban, but the others would be rural by anyone's calculation.)
Money talks. It doesn't say everything, but it does talk very loud. |
Yep. Which is why Obama would never have even seen the light of day (nevermind actually get elected) without the support of Wall Street (Goldman-Sachs and the gang). They spend a few million getting some corrupt, smooth talking lawyer/politician into office, and get trillions in bailouts in return. Not a bad return on investment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| but when they drive the world to question our political will to pay our debts...well, that's not their fault, that's all Obama's doing. I smell rotten hypocrisy here of the foulest kind. |
Um, it's not "our debt" any more than the Iceland debt belongs to the Icelandic people or Greek debt belongs to the Greek people. It doesn't. No, the cause of all these problems is banker debt. The black hole of derivatives that they fraudulently created. It has only become "our" debt because Obama and other corrupt leaders have signed onto it, putting the public on the hook. Now they want to put all these austerity measures into place, just so Obama's slimball banker friends at Goldman-Sachs can keep giving themselves record bonuses.
Seriously, what part of this don't you understand? |
I find myself in complete agreement. (Although I would never say income tax is 'theft'...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
