Just reading headlines so far, looks like J Roberts agreed the mandate is a tax, even though it specifically could not have passed as a tax and our two faced Pres famously said it was not a tax. They overturn our language, not just our constotution.
We cant require citizenship papers, but they can stop you for healthcare papers.
The first step in lowering healthcare costs in America was to hire more IRS agents. George Orwell could not write a creepier script.
I don't mean to intrude, but I must confess to not seeing the logic of blaming Title IX on this. There are many local land grant colleges with many sports which feature male athletes from other states. Is Title IX to blame for Big 12 and Big Ten recruiting football players in the South? And, colleges and universities have been recruiting international talent for years. Of course, many of those were for academic
Intrusions always welcome!
Blame seems so negative, I am just saying there is an unambiguous cause and effect relationship. Title IX causes the full rides to.be offered in non-revenue women's sports and the full rides cause those spots to be taken by player better than available locally. Some might find that to be a good thing. I'm just saying it's a fact.
Schorlarships in men's revenue sports are not caused by Title IX, they are limited by it. The local policy choice may have the same effect, but I don't see the parallel to Title IX.
... but fhe unintended consequence of Title IX is that local girls here can no longer play for the University.
"the local girls can no longer play for the University". Why not if they are good enough? It they are not good enough, they can play for a smaller college. Or even on Club teams."
Or they can just to hell but what I wrote was that they can not play Div I for the local land grant University because of Title IX. The state taxpayer pays instead for world class players from foreign countries to take those spots. In my daughter's sport, a 3 time state champion plays 6th (last) singles. How many local girls do you think are better than that?
During a lame duck sessiom I think not. There would no political ptessure to close debate and allow a vote. Right now is the timing. If.there is a timely resignation and a timely and qualified nominee, then there is pressure on the minority to allow the Senate to perform it's constitutonal function before the fall term of the Court.
The reasons for a retirement would need to be personal and 16 years of limited government greatness is beyond wishful, but there actually could be a long stretch coming where a far left replacement would not be in the cards.
With all the worries about Egypt and GM not here to point this out, but we can rest assured that Pres Obama's Dir of Intelligence Klapper told us last year that the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular. Who knew?
I can't link right now but see Mark Steyn's column today.
3 big things: Obamacare strike down, AZ immigration law upheld?, and .will Breyer and or Ginsburg step down this week before we head into 16 years of the Romney Rubio surge to limited govt greatness.
ACA: Maybe the ruling will be out before I finish typing into my handheld. I was hoping we could all get our armchair opinions posted first. Procrastination crept in because it is hard to find a constitutional issue. The power isn't authorized. A wise Latina can see that. ?
Proponents pretend there was no other way, but there are plenty, such as tax and spend more. They know how to do that. Or fee for service, works for every other industry.
Proponents compare to state car insurance laws, but that is state and you can opt out.
Proponents say it is no different than ths Mass mandate, but that would be true only if 49 states copied them, not a new federal mandate.
Proponents say it is no different than a federally mandated social security retirement plan, but that is very carefully framed in federal law as nothing more than a current account tax and spend law.
Obamacare is an expansion of federal powers that requires a new amendment to implement. 4 justices know that. 5 will vote to strike down. J. Sotomayer faces the toughest choice of her life. Is she obligated to uphold that old document of limits on government or is she more beholden to symbolically stand with the people who got her there - to uphold the limits on government.
The suspense for me will be to read what utter nonsense on which the dissenters base their dissent. I plan to read that section first. What is their view on the limits of government, if not this, then what?
Thanks to BD for links provided. I will read those over the weekend. I would rather thw Pres be an expert on this than me.
It is a delicate balance between separation and oversight.
I would settle as a matter of principle for Dems in the White House to govern with whatever princples they espoused when those roles were reversed.
How naive of me!
The response ads to a Romney the flipflopper charge keep gettimg easier.
I know about border agent Terry murder and 800 violent crimes inside Mexico, but who died and what taxpayer funds were sqaundered on Dick Cheney's energy task force? I don't recall young Barack the constitutional scholar bucking his party to come to the previous administration's defense.
What would be the value of housing if not still subsidized by government?Significantly lower. Housing is distorted by govt - but tied to income. Housing can't recover until employment and personal income recovers.
JDN, Where you find a couple of apparent contradictions in translation from the words written thousands of years ago, I notice you did not quote "Thou Shalt Not Kill" written / spoken with extreme clarity, the contradictions today are resolved in Judeo-Christianity 100% on the side of peace. Islam needs to do that. I don't know how.
Either way, we are not at war with a billion people. Only with those at war with us.
A strange comment I heard and will try to repeat / paraphrase On PBS a couple of weeks ago John McLaughlin asked Pat Buchanan during the Queen's celebration why Monarchy survives in Europe but not here:
'There was a time in Europe when all the adventurous, free-spirited people who sought out imdividual freedoms and self rule left (for the new world) and those who preferred to be ruled stayed.'
(The EU perhaps is another iteration of rule from afar somewhat lacking in consent of the governed.)
Maybe our European friends on the board have a different view...
This proposition makes perfect sense. Brits don't want a monetary union. France just elected the far left. Greece, Portugal, Italy,Spain, even Ireland aren't proving worthy. Eternal bailouts do not fix underlying problems.
The original aim of the monetary union as I understood it was that membership would cause fiscal responsibility because losing that status would be unthinkable.
The question to me was not the Obama flip flop; that is most obvious. The qestion was the legal merit and substance of what he said previously. He presents himself to be a constitutional scholar. So was he right that he cannot act unilaterally or was be wrong?
Lalalala, it is all so simple, but absolutely no comment on the fact that Obama 2011 and half of 2012 disagrees with Obama's June 2012 campaign decision. If it is all so simple, so right, so obvious, why didn't he issue the executive order sooner? Why did he make the 2011 statement?
"round up 12 million illegal immigrants and deport them all"
I suppose the law and the punishment is the same whether you are spying for an enemy or spying for an ally, probably not contemplated in the law.
I don't have enough information to know what I think of the Jonathon Pollard case, but in that I hope we are in cooperation with Israel on intelligence and defense matters it would seem this is a case more suitable for a Presidential pardon than most of Hugh Rodham's bought friends.
If this were Russia, Communist China, Iran or VenezChavezuela, you know we would chomping at the bit to appease them.
Romney was accused of being invested (to a very small extent) in the GSAs. Mother Jones says Romeny misled because the investment was in a mutual fund, not truly a blind trust as Romney had stated in a debate exchange with Newt. Either way it was others hired to invest a portion of his money into government backed securities that would not be fully diversified without touching the federally controlled mortgage market.
From the Boston Globe and Mother Jones again (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/mitt-romney-fannie-freddie-bailout): "On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 (out of hundreds of millions) in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities."
Without trivializing $15,001 of interest that the rest of us would kill for (figuratively), that is not a close financial tie, inappropriate, bought off, or otherwise. Romney was 0.1% invested in GSAs with no say whatsoever in policy.
Now take a look at Barack Obama. Crafty wrote: "Baraq is the #2 all time recipient of FM donations! (and that was accomplished in a mere 18 months!)"
Let me add one more exclamation point of my own: !
With all due respect to the President of the United States running for reelection, this JERK blames everyone but himself for a mess he says he "inherited", but he not only voted present on failed policies and botched regulations but mostly voted NOT PRESENT out on the campaign. At the most crucial moment of a federal housing market needing reform he was in fact ON THE TAKE to NOT REFORM the housing GSAs.
Crafty: "... the authorship of the bubble is laid DIRECTLY at Baraq's door! I would focus on the housing bubble some more. In my opinion, the housing bubble was the epicenter of everything else. The FMs and the CRA caused misallocation of investment into housing and other real estate. The loan guarantees of the FMs removed moral hazard from the system and surprise! banks acted badly! Making loans without caring whether they were paid off (and being pressured to make them by the CRA) and then bundling them into products to sell downstream, which bought them thinking that because the mortagages were bundled they were buying a diversified product-- that was guaranteed by the FMs anyway-- the progresses solution of more regulation of the bad greedy banks misses the point entirely-- the FMs guarantee provoked and enabled the bad behavior. Multiply the dynamic several fold by the Fed's deranged easy money, low interest rate policies and VOILA! a bubble was born! The masses thought it real, and the stupid amongst them borrowed against it and spent it."
You are exactly right economically. The politics of it is another story. Pundits should jump in but I don't think Romney wants to play the 2008 collapse blame game.
Romney could blame Obama for what happened 'under Bush', but really Sen. Barack Obama chose to be a complete non-factor during his brief Senatorial time in Washington. That partial Senate term was a squandered opportunity, just like his Presidency.
If the larger story line is that Obama is corrupt and on the take, then his tie to FNMA's donations at that crucial juncture is the silver bullet. But the story line of this June 2012 is that things are broken and our incumbent, amateur in chief is in way over his head pretending he has some fix now after 3 1/2 years squandered.
I see this as a counterpunch opportunity for Romney. Instead of 30 debates in the primaries there will likely be 2 in the finals. Obama will most certainly make this tired, lame, blame everyone but himself excuse and leave Romney with a there-you-go-again table setting. Here is my help for Romney to reply:
'Alright Mr. President, let's talk about 'that decade' for a moment and both of our roles in it. When our country needed to host the world for the first post-9/11 Olympics while security was in question and the Olympic committee was in shambles, I was honored to be chosen for a reputation of leadership competence, to assemble a team, to lead the effort from start to finish, to chase the corruption out and heightened security in. By all accounts this major event was a total success. And you were where? Doing what? With the most amazing oratory of a generation you rose from a state senator to become the leading voice of the left wing of the Democratic party in this country just as they were taking control of the US Congress 6 years ago. That was when job growth hit 50 consecutive months, unemployment was 4.6% and the deficit was one tenth of what it is today. Instead of taking your position of media attention to warn against the looming dangers of irresponsible lending as the federal housing bubble was expanding, it turns out you were one of the two politicians on their payroll, arguing for regulators to leave them alone and let them go even further down that reckless path. Now, instead of apologizing, you have the AUDACITY to stand here today and tell us it was someone else's fault. Mr. President, with all due respect, you didn't lead then, you didn't lead us out of this as President and you aren't going to fix things now. Mr. President, for the good of the country, please step aside and let someone else lead this great country back on track.'
George W Bush, McCain, Jeb Bush and other Republicans, Lugar I'm sure, favor some form of amnesty without using the a-word that polls so terribly. Reagan signed a deal with the devil Nov 6 1986 trading some form of amnesty for border security later that never happened.
Crafty mentions unemployment of our youth, but the ease of gang and terrorist mobility is reason enough to ask the federal government to do their job.
Democrats want no ID check coming in, no ID check for voting and then the power to pass laws that apply to other people and not to yourself, like raising tax rates on only the wealthiest Americans.
Maybe after we remove the meaning of the word marriage from the dictionary we can get rid of the concept of sovereignty too. All true libs want is one world government anyway. ------- Text of Pres. Obama from one year ago. Read carefully. Was he lying to us then or is he lying to us now?
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.
"Marc: I forget where, but I heard conversation recently that seemed reliable to me that pointed out that Assad has major chem-bio capabilities ready to use. Whether he uses them or the Islamist fascist opposition gets ahold of them is a big deal-- something to think about." -------------------
From unreliable sources, the WMD that disappeared out of Iraq was trucked into Syria.
[From Pres.2012] "Contrary to his own previous statements on the subject, with his Executive Order BO today blew off his responsibilities under our Constitution to enforce the immigration laws. ... "
Note that this topic went dormant since Jan. Illegal immigration is down because of the bad economy. People instead are going home. Still it needs to be solved - and mass deportation of otherwise law abiding citizens is mostly not going to happen.
Reactions to Obama's move:
1) Already mentioned, it is abuse of power and a shirk of his constitutional responsibilities.
2) It is an Obama flip flop. He already said it would be inappropriate for the executive branch to act unilaterally. They had already done everything they could legally do. Must see video link below.
3) Picking off the low hanging fruit first undermines a larger idea of acting comprehensively.
4) Roughly 100% of the voters are going to see this as a cynical political ploy to win votes though many with a direct family, neighbor or friend stake in it will see that as worth it. The Hispanic vote was only 9% of the total 2008 vote and Obama won 67% of them. Hispanics make a crucial difference in certain swing states. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona come to mind.
5) Conservatives and people who respect our laws may have to in the end make concessions on some existing illegal immigrants. If the end game is concessions, too bad to look like the enemy of Hispanics during the negotiations. Romney and Rubio are mindful of this. They need to win the election to have any power over this or anything else going forward. But out of that caving and compromise should have come permanent border security, for one thing.
6) Romney risks perception of flip-flop-flip with his next move as he went pretty hardline on illegals during the chase for the Republican nomination.
7) There are other areas of political/economic opportunity: expanding LEGAL immigration of scientists, engineers and business owners from around the world where Republicans still can lead. -------------- Krauthammer, out and out lawlessness: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/15/krauthammer_obamas_immigration_policy_is_out-and-out_lawlessness.html
John Yoo, Executive overreach: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303038/executive-overreach-john-yoo#
Wow. Thanks for that post! Does anyone feel like they were warned?
The problem (IMO) isn't the Euro, but the failure of the countries within the Euro to pursue responsible economic policies.
I wonder if any of our 'members of Parliament' used their time on the floor here with that kind of passion and that level of clarity warning us about Fannie Mae, CRAp or ACA before they collapse(d) us.
India and America Less than allies, more than friends America and India try to define a new sort of relationship
Jun 16th 2012 | DELHI | from the print edition The Economist
“TWO cities where people rarely agree on much of anything” was how Robert Blake, an assistant secretary at the American State Department, described Washington and Delhi this month. It was a joke but, in context, was rather close to the bone. Touting a blossoming friendship, America and India still find plenty to bicker about.
His speech was looking forward to the third annual US-India “Strategic Dialogue”, which brought together senior figures from both countries in Washington, DC, on June 13th. This is a celebration of a partnership by which both countries set great store. Yet the list of issues on which they are at odds is dispiritingly long: Afghanistan, Iran, nuclear trade, climate change, market access, arms sales and more. If this is partnership, some in both capitals ask, what would rivalry look like?
The impetus seems to have gone out of a relationship in which America invested so much under George W Bush. His decision, in 2005, to press for international acceptance of India’s civil nuclear programme, ending a ban on foreign assistance imposed because of India’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was meant to usher in a new era of co-operation and trust. Some of that evaporated early in the presidency of Barack Obama. India resented and successfully resisted his appointment of an envoy with a brief to meddle in India’s dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. And it was alarmed by his effort to recast relations with China, and talk of a “G2”.
In America, meanwhile, the prizes won by Mr Bush’s huge concession to India can seem at best disappointing. Indian legislation about the liability for nuclear accidents in effect closes to American companies the very market Mr Bush sacrificed so much to prise open. Disgruntlement grew last year when American firms lost their bid to supply India with 126 jetfighters—India’s biggest-ever defence contract—to European competitors. Both sides have moved on, but still, says Daniel Twining, of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a think-tank in Washington, “even the most ebullient supporters” of the partnership in America are “a bit depressed”.
Mr Twining, who worked on the partnership in the Bush administration, says that both sides remain confident in its long-term benefits—perhaps so confident that they neglect the mundane business of actually building it. Two factors, however, are pushing America to reinvigorate ties with India. The near-collapse in its relations with Pakistan gives India an even greater significance in America’s hopes for stability in Afghanistan when most NATO troops leave in 2014. And America’s aspirations for co-operative relations with China have degenerated into a more blatant if undeclared form of strategic competition, as America rebalances its entire military posture towards Asia.
So American leaders are again talking up the India relationship. In Delhi this month Leon Panetta, the defence secretary, called India a “linchpin” of the “rebalancing” strategy. After this week’s dialogue, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, noted that “the strategic fundamentals of our relationship are pushing our two countries’ interests into closer convergence.”
But India fears being left in the lurch as NATO skedaddles out of Afghanistan. Its security priority is to receive credible reassurances on plans for stabilising Afghanistan and ensuring it never again becomes a Talibanised client of Pakistan.
America, for its part, wants to see India further reduce imports of oil from Iran, with which Indian leaders like to boast of their “civilisational” ties. But on the eve of the dialogue, Mrs Clinton announced that India, unlike China or even Singapore, had already done enough to earn a waiver from American sanctions.
Hopes that something concrete might emerge from the dialogue were largely invested in economics. The two sides agreed to work on a bilateral investment treaty to unlock the huge potential for co-operation. In fact the one area where ties are flourishing—the jetfighter disappointment aside —is defence. India has become the world’s largest arms importer, and American exporters are benefiting, with more than $8 billion in sales in recent years.
Overall, however, America’s economic ties with India do not come close to the huge, symbiotic relations it has with China. India itself now does more trade with China ($74 billion in 2011) than it does with America ($58 billion). American officials would like to see the balance tip more in their country’s favour.
The unstated logic in both America and India behind the drive for closer relations is as a warning to China not to overreach itself and drive them into a fully fledged military alliance. It is still far short of that—more like a mutual feeling that India and America are closer in strategic and political outlook to each other than they are to China. For that reason, America has no qualms about India’s “Look East” policy of engagement with the rest of Asia, or even with its contemplating membership of the China-led regional security grouping focused on Central Asia, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.
Experience elsewhere in Asia suggests that America’s confidence in the long-term strength of its partnership with India need not be shaken even if China’s economic links with India continue to outpace its own. The great paradox of Asian strategy today is that the closer countries find themselves bound up with China economically, the more they seek the reassurance of American security.
Obj: "even if he is replaced (and I believe he will be) our work has only begun."
Yes! Isn't that the truth.
Crafty wrote: "Question presented: Can we focus attention on the housing bubble and its true causes or are we estopped from doing so by things in MR's record?"
I don't know any connection between Romney and the housing problem other than that plenty of other Republicans had their fingerprints all over it. The point to me in housing is to be moving in a direction AWAY from government activism in markets.
Crafty continued: "Idea: I'm thinking that it might be effective to "abandon" the Bush rate cuts (which I am not persuaded were all that well desinged to begin with-- but at the moment I don't have the time to see what we have concerning them in the Tax thread) in the name of "lower rates, broader base with less loopholes". "
The country, even if it chooses well, has a timing problem. IIRC the so-called Bush tax cuts expire this time on 12/31/2012. Even Bill Clinton gets it that having that investment punishment marker looming will tank the economy further. Also see Christina Romer's writings on that. The Romney plan and Ryan plans are good enough IMO if fully implemented. If growth minded Republicans sweep 2012 and IF these packages could get through a less than 60 vote majority QUICKLY, a much better tax plan as Crafty suggests could be made retroactive back to 1/1/2013. Problem is that in the meantime the impending increases that never really materialize still will do serious economic damage during the period of uncertainty. This needs to be fixed now.
We will see if famous people read the forum on that. -------
Obama believes George Bush screwed up left field so badly that no can play it.
Romney is saying that even if you concede that point to Obama, he is admitting he can't fix it.
It was bad in the fall of 2008, and the investment collapse had an unemployment fallout. But the Bush-Pelosi-Obama recession ended in June of 2009. The 1.2% growth (?) record of the last 3 years since then is all on President Obama and his failed policies. Growth should be five times greater right now IMO.
Decline/stagnation was a policy choice. That's enough of it.
"...competetive [because] people tend to see the choice between
a) the Bush policies that got us in this mess b) the Baraq policies that keep us in this mess
In other words, Baraq's "It's Bush's fault" resonates. Notions taken as common currency here (the Dems wanted the Bush policies to be even more reckless, the Dems controlled Congress starting in 2006 and therefore the measurement of the data should put the numbers since then on the Dem side of the ledger, the Dems controlled both houses and the White House for two years and therefore the Rep obstinacy argument makes no sense, etc) seem not to have cracked the platitudes of the pravdas in public perception.
Question presented: What to do?" ------------------------------------------------
Romney campaign sees themselves on message, looking forward, and does not want to be dragged into a discussion defending any part of the 2000's. But "that decade" is the Obama attack line and needs to be answered. (The what to do is answer it here and spread the answer.)
The 2000s had 3 segments economically. Skipping the recession left behind by Clinton that erased much of his gains, there was robust growth and then there was an end to robust growth with investor panic. Is it too wonkish to ask and answer, why did we have robust growth and what were investors seeing during the end of growth and the beginning of the great asset selloff of 2008? [Hint: They saw Obama coming.]
It is in the Senate races especially where the message I call '6 years since 2006' needs to be pressed. Our meek little Amy, Sen Klobuchar D-MN, voted for and pressed for all the crap that caused the crash and all the anti-growth policies preventing recovery, yet enjoys 60% approval, (really it is likability). So did a dozen other dems of 2006. They need to be held accountable for their results and that should spill into the Presidential. Wouldn't it be nice and easier if it could happen the other way around? And do we want likability or a robust recovery - there is a difference.
Pres. Obama needs to be called out an two timeline lies in his message. "When we got here" was Nov 2006 - that is when they took power. There is no one alive who thought Bush was in charge of domestic policy after that moment and unemployment was at 4.6%, and now no one alive who will point it out now, except here. Romney won't press it but I will.
Secondly is his drivel about 'the logjam', meaning divided government, meaning Republican obstructionism. Yes it has been divided ever since the 14 point swing in 2010 where the nation voted 'no confidence' in our likable President, but no party ever had more power than Dems in his first two years and really for the 4 years Nov 2006 until Nov 2010. This wasn't divided govt, it was HIS government. Those first two years 2009-2010 especially, but prior to that he and his current Secretary of State were the de facto leaders of the United States Senate reforming NOTHING of what was wrong and setting financial traps "before we arrived". -----------------
Crafty makes a very interesting point about how most of what was wrong in the 2000s (spending, bungled regulations etc.) Obama either supported or would have done worse. This line of politics follows right out of HW Bush attack. He was thrown out for breaking his no new taxes pledge by people who would have raised them sooner and greater. Politics can be very strange.
"That Decade" he now calls it. It was called "the failed economic policies of the last 30 years" - until Bill Clinton took him out to the woodshed.
During 'that decade' of course he includes the recession left over by the Clinton administration. And then it includes the 2 years of disaster when HE, Sen Obama, and Pelosi-Reid-Ellison et al took control of purse strings in congress. If one looked at a growth curve, one would find more than 50 months continuous months of robust growth in between those Dem tainted end posts.
'That decade' brought us:
"huge tax cuts" - Like my friend here, he fails to distinguish between tax RATE cuts which we had and tax revenue cuts that only happened under HIS plan. Revenues in fact grew 35% in 3 years between 2003 and 2006, prior to the swearing in of the Pelosi-Obama congress. That is double digit (almost 12%) annual growth over a sustained period - until voters were bored with growth and pursued loftier goals. Obama: "There is no data that the tax cuts paid for themselves". Yes there is: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
"Fewer Regulations" - Really? When were there fewer regulations? The bubble and collapse were a direct result of BUNGLED regulations. CRAp, Fannie Mae, war against domestic energy production etc.
"The wealthiest 1% Americans income grew 275% over the decade." - No they didn't. Income inequality data mixes in a new batch of rich people every year; it doesn't track at all how much any citizen's income rose. Ten years later, FYI, successful people were selling their products and services into a larger and richer world economy. Ten years later at the low end people were either contributing nothing or working plenty hard without increasing the value of what they were producing. That is by definition. If they had dramatically increased the value of what they were producing, they wouldn't be at the low end of income measurement. The main increases in production and productivity come from CAPITAL INVESTMENT. But the end point with the trick data is necessarily measured AFTER Obama and his colleagues had acted to destroy capital investment.
"The economy started to grow 6 months after I took Office and has grown continuously for 3 years since." - That was BEFORE his policies went into effect. Doesn't sound like they underestimated how bad it really was. Unless you agree with he implication of 'Mission Accomplished', "the private sector is doing fine", he is admitting that he has absolutely no idea about how to grow the private sector any faster than 1.9% growth except more of the same and expect a different result.
It's the middle class that seems to be paying the most. The rich?"
JDN, It's hard to follow your implied logic or stated question, but I will answer you anyway.
This is not about paying taxes, but the policy that triggered the collapse was an impending tax increase aimed at the rich, code-named 'letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans'.
Even though at year end the tax increase on the rich never in fact happened, it triggered an asset sell-off that we now know destroyed 40% of the wealth for people that were NOT targeted by the policies of the Pelosi-Reid congress and the incoming Obama administration in fall or 2008.
The 99% so to speak lost jobs, lost income and lost value in their existing investments including their homes, while the 1% who were targeted pulled back and are for the most still rich and doing okay.
Conclusion: We live in an interconnected economy. You can not target one group for punishment/confiscation, especially investors, capitalists, job creators without also hurting yourself and your family and your neighbors.
As to Buffet's meaningless words: "it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning": NO. These policies came from the elected class and they were (ill-advisedly) supported by 53% (roughly) of the lower income 99% in 2006 and 2008. The 1% have great influence but no real political power in a representative republic.
One point to add to leakgate is that it seems to me that the President cannot leak. The Commander in Chief always has the power to declassify. So some top aide is in big trouble or else it is just another example of being sloppy with our national security.
If Fast and Furious had been dealt with quickly and decisively it wouldn't.feel. so much like drowning.in scandals now.
Interesting is that the recall / public union movement lost in the Dem primary. Telling are the polls big left money saw when they decided to sit out and the polls Obama saw when he decided to fly over and tweet it in.
Jim Messina is saying this (the Presidential race and cpngressional races) s a big series of local contests. Looks like one big national referendum to me.
Detroit: The Moral of the Story By Kevin D. Williamson June 8, 2012 3:18 P.M. Comments 28
The Left’s answer to the deficit: raise taxes to protect spending. The Left’s answer to the weak economy: raise taxes to enable new spending. The Left’s answer to the looming sovereign-debt crisis: raise taxes to pay off old spending. For the Left, every deficit is a revenue-side problem, not a spending-side problem, and the solution to every economic problem is more spending, necessitating more taxes. The problem with that way of looking at things is called Detroit, which looks to be running out of money in about one week. Detroit is what liberalism’s end-game looks like.
And Detroit does in fact have a revenue problem, as I argued in the May 14 National Review (“Let Detroit Fail”): “Revenues declined by more than $100 million between 2007 and 2011. Income-tax revenue dropped by 18 percent, utility-tax revenue by 17 percent, property-tax revenue by 2.3 percent. Seeking a quick fix to its revenue problems, Detroit chartered several casino-gambling operations, only to see taxes from them begin to decline (by 1.5 percent last year) after a period of early growth. Detroit, once the wealthiest city in the United States by per capita income, is today the second-poorest major U.S. city.”
Detroit is evidence for the fact that the economic limitations on tax increases sometimes kick in before the political limitations do. The relationship between tax rates, tax revenue, economic incentives, growth, and investment is complex, to say the least, and deeply dependent on the historical and economic facts of particular places at particular times. We have theories of growth, but no blueprint. But Detroit was not reduced to its present wretched circumstances by historical inevitabilities or the impersonal tides of economics. It did not have to end this way, but it did, and understanding why it did is essential if we are to avoid repeating Detroit’s municipal tragedy on a national scale.
One lesson to learn from Detroit is that investing unions with coercive powers does not ensure future private-sector employment or the preservation of private-sector wages, despite liberal fairy tales to the contrary, nor do protectionist measures strengthen the long-term prospects of domestic firms competing in highly integrated global markets. We cannot legislate away comparative advantage or other facts of life. But the problem of unions’ coercing distortions in the private sector is at this point a relatively small one, given the decline of unionization outside of government. Organized labor being a fundamentally predatory enterprise, its attention has turned to the public sector, where there are fatter and more stable rents to be collected.
The second important lesson to be learned from Detroit is that there are hard limits on real tax increases, a fact that will be of more immediate significance in the national debate as our deficit and debt problems reach crisis stage. Even those of us who are relatively open to tax increases as a component of a long-term debt-reduction strategy must keep in mind that our current spending trend is putting us on an unsustainable course in which our outlays will far outpace our ability to collect taxes to pay for them, no matter where we set our theoretical tax rates. The IMF calculates that to maintain present spending trend the United States will have to nearly double (88 percent increase) all federal taxes to maintain theoretical solvency. Those tax increases are sure to have real-world effects on everything from investing to immigration. At some point, the statutory tax increases will not increase actual revenue.
Even the best tax regimes are cannibalistic: Every tax is an incentive for the taxpayer to relocate to a more friendly jurisdiction. But tax rates are not the only incentive: Google is not going to set up shop in Somalia. Healthy governments create conditions that make it worth paying the taxes — which is to say, governments are a lot like participants in any other competitive market (with some obvious and important exceptions). The benefits of being in Detroit used to be worth the costs, but in recent decades millions of people and thousands of enterprises large and small have decided that is no longer the case. It is not as though one cannot profitably manufacture automobiles in the United States — Toyota does — you just can’t do it very well in Detroit. No one with eyes in his head could honestly think that the services provided by the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan are worth the costs.
The third lesson is moral. Detroit’s institutions have long been marked by corruption, venality, and self-serving. Healthy societies have high levels of trust. Who trusts Detroit? This is not angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. People do not invest in firms, industries, cities, or countries they do not trust. Corruption makes people poor.
What is true of Detroit is true of the country. Our national public sector not only is bloated and parasitic, it is less effective, less responsible, and less honest than that of many other developed countries, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Germany. I am not an unreserved admirer of Transparency International’s global corruption-perceptions index, but I believe that it is in broad outline accurate. Liberals are inclined to learn the wrong lessons from the relative success of countries such as Canada or New Zealand, concluding that what we need is a bigger welfare state, government-run health care, etc. (Conservatives, for our part, tend to overemphasize the role of comparatively low taxes and light regulation in the success of countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Those are important, but there are other equally important factors.) In reality, there is a great diversity of health-care arrangements and social-spending levels among the countries that have more effective institutions than ours, while many countries with the sorts of institutions liberals admire (take Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal for starters) are in crisis, in significant part because of plain corruption. What the more successful countries tend to have in common is a public sector that is less intent on looting the fisc.
Sure, Hong Kong and Singapore have lower levels of government spending (as a share of GDP) than does the United States. So do Switzerland and Australia. At 38.9 percent of GDP, our public-sector spending is indistinguishable from that of Canada (39.7 percent). It is not obvious that we have much to show for it.
The city fathers of Detroit inherited one of the richest and most productive cities in the world, and they ruined it in a generation. The gentlemen in Washington have been entrusted with the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, and the trendline does not look good. Those of us seeking to radically reduce the footprint of government must remind ourselves from time to time that our case is as much ethical as economic, that the ethical and the economic are indeed closely intertwined.
It's hard to believer that we have a special Obama sin tax on the manufacturing and sale of life saving medical devices in the United States. This is my congressmen, Erik Paulsen R-MN, authoring the repeal and delivering the GOP response address this weekend.
"Money matters; Walker spent almost ten times more."
If this was a bad time financially for Dems to have an election, why did they call one?
"Go Ugly Early." (Begala's advice to Obama.)
Done. Doesn't cover a bad record.
I have much simpler advice for Obama. Govern like Walker and run on your record.
My advice to Begala. This isn't a fight. It is a choice of governing philosophies.
Another important truth out of Wisconsin. The angry public unions lost this race in the primary. That is IMO why Obama did not visit Barrett. I am still truly amazed that he flew over hundreds of miles of Wisconsin, the battle of the year, from Minneapolis to Chicago on June 1, from fund raiser to fund raiser and did not lift a finger or land a plane to offer a morsel of help to his party going down in embarrassment. Next (I already wrote this) it will be Pres. Obama in Badger stadium in Oct saying, "I need your help Wisconsin, I can't do this without you!"
Yet he left them to do it without him, hoping to save his own fragile reputation.
More free advice to the President. Drop out now, admit you weren't ready, save your reputation, and you will still be eligible when you are ready.
Obama might have done better to follow the advice of the Washington Post's Ed Rogers: "If you are president of the United States and you don't have anything to say, don't have a press conference to say it. If you're the president of the United States and by Thursday it's widely believed you've had one of the worst weeks of your presidency, take Friday off, and specifically avoid having a press conference." ------------------- Problem is that he still believes: "Harry, I have a gift."
Mr. President, you have no gift (of oratory that substitutes for leadership). You have policies that suck and people are seeing there is no deity-like figure running the ship.
Couple of comments. On the homosexual question, I think the proportion is between 2 and 3%. As Obj suggests, yes they deserve the right to empower each other for emergency decisions, inheritance, etc. They deserve enough respect to at least possibly notice that it is the right side of politics actually offering them the most freedoms, not gay specific, but overall including economic freedoms etc.
"Crony capitalism should say Economic Fascism"
I think I will just say Cronyism. Not capitalism or fascism.
Fascism is a term tied to Hitler and Nazis. Under Pelosi-Obama et al we have way too many encroachments on our freedoms and too many burdens on our economy, but day to day even with all the Solyndra-like bullsh*t, we still mostly live our lives in a spirit of freedom.
Cronyism is not capitalism. It is not a form of capitalism. It is how things work in third world Kleptocracies and in fascist and other totalitarian states. It is about who you know, who you bribe, who you have something on. It is the opposite of equal protection under the law and consent of the governed. The money going to Biden's buddy is a diversion from what it is we say we do in America. The people didn't say they wanted that. You and I don't get what they got. We also don't get rounded up and incinerated either but we certain don't govern according to our own founding principles.
Whatever the terms are, let's keep fighting to stop it.
"We heard the "no blood for oil" refrain from the Left the entire time we were in Iraq, but the fact is that oil is a national security issue."
I believe the blood for oil argument was upside down. The short term effect was the opposite. Saddam was producing oil. Doing what we thought was the right thing to do for humanity and for security involved a war and a disruption. It never was any kind of attempt to take their oil fields for our own purposes as was suggested by opponents of the war. We don't even buy their oil at market price but we benefit as everyone else does from them returning to the supply market - and no longer threatening to take over gulf states like Kuwait and Saudi.
Credits to Wash Post and Steven Hayward at Powerline for covering this.
"Today is the 30th anniversary of Reagan’s famous address in Westminster Hall, London, where he outraged fashionable opinion with his argument that it was Communism that would end up “on the ash heap of history.”
Read it here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/06/reagans-westminster-speech
President Obama’s problem now isn’t what Wisconsin did, it’s how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn’t go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker’s place, where the money is.
There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration. …
Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that’s all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn’t even trying to lead, he’s just trying to win.
Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the “avalanche of leaks,” according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist “kill list,” reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden’s DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put “American lives in jeopardy,” put “our nation’s security in jeopardy.”
This isn’t the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.
And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour’s house. He’s busy. He’s running for president.
But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.