Obama - The beginning
Lets see what is happening under the new leadership. Since there is so much hope and anticipation. . .
Day One:
Obama tackles recession, war and ethics
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a first-day whirlwind, President Barack Obama showcased efforts to revive the economy on Wednesday, summoned top military officials to chart a new course in Iraq and eased into the daunting thicket of Middle East diplomacy. "What an opportunity we have to change this country," said the 47-year-old chief executive, who also issued new ethics rules for his administration and hosted a reception at the presidential mansion for 200 inauguration volunteers and guests selected by an Internet lottery.
After dancing at inaugural balls with first lady Michelle Obama past midnight, Obama entered the Oval Office for the first time as president in early morning. He read a good luck note left behind by President George W. Bush, then began breaking cleanly with his predecessor's policies.
Aides circulated a draft of an executive order that would close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year and halt all war crimes trials in the meantime.
He presided over the White House meeting on the economy as the House Appropriations Committee moved toward approval of $358 billion in new spending, part of the economic stimulus package making its way to his desk.
The new commander in chief held his first meeting in the Situation Room, where he, Vice President Joe Biden and senior military and foreign policy officials discussed war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama campaigned on a pledge to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 16 months, and to beef up the commitment in Afghanistan.
He also imposed a pay freeze for about 100 White House aides who earn $100,000 or more. Its implementation was unclear, since none of them was on the payroll before Tuesday's noontime inauguration.
That's one heck of a start.
I was listening to the news this morning and heard his bit about transparency in government in connection with not allowing gifting by lobyists etc.
While I think this is a great step, I wondered how long it might be before the first scandal comes out about a dem accepting some kind of gift.
Obama has an enormous number and variety of problems to deal with, but if he's as good at actually being president as he is at looking presidential, he might just pull it off.
And hey, why am I still getting spelling error messages for Obama? Time for an upgrade patch!
Obama has an enormous number and variety of problems to deal with, but if he's as good at actually being president as he is at looking presidential, he might just pull it off.
Compare what we know about Clinton with what we have already seen from Obama.
Clinton was superb at grasping a current problem and acting on it. Generals loves how he would ask the right questions and give them the leadership they needed. As a result, Clinton turned potential disasters such as Haiti, the Mississippi floods, and the Balkans into simple and immediately resolved issues.
But Clinton was not so good at getting ahead of issues. For example, he was slow at getting together an administration. He was slow at defining an ultimate and long term solution to the Middle East once extremists had successfully undermined the Oslo Accords by (for example) killing Rabin. Having realized he had no solution, Clinton desperately tried another 'Hail Mary' solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict only in his last year.
So far, we know Obama has long term plans. For example, he has no short term plan for our economic calamity. Obama has already confirmed a belief in what economists predict – an example of addressing a problem rather than waiting to react to its symptoms. Obama expects years of recession and to be paying for this economic disaster even a decade from now.
He has already made bluntly clear some milestones such as out of "Mission Accomplished", into the only war we have any business being in, restoration of international relations all over the world, talking to our 'enemies', a long term economic agenda, ethics in government, and closing the American concentration camp in Guantanamo. Clinton never had such clear objectives when he took power.
It will be most interesting to see how well Obama achieves his long term objectives AND continues to define new ones. Whereas Clinton could respond decisively to Saddam (having almost drive Saddam from power), hopefully, Obama will also avert other problems before those problems fester.
Top of my list? The spread of nuclear weapons which has been all but encouraged by America this past decade by not talking to others, by viewing the world in black and white (ie axis of evil), and by subverting another international treaty - the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. One problem that cannot be solved by a responsible response. An example of a problem that must be solved long before it happens. Clinton was not very good at this. First impressions suggest Obama is looking farther ahead.
I've worked a number of jobs and I've mentored a number of newbees in my career. Most people take weeks to be any kind of useful. There's just always stuff to ramp up for. Give the guy a couple of days. :rolleyes:
WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama reaffirmed on
Tuesday his pledge to invest in the U.S. military and review major weapons
programs, vowing to end abuses and cost overruns in the current defense
procurement system.
The White House posted a list of defense priorities on its website shortly
after Obama's inauguration, mentioning by name Boeing Co's C-17 transport
aircraft and a multibillion dollar program to replace the Air Force's
refueling planes.
The administration said it would build up special operations forces;
expand the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000; and end
the current stop-loss policy.
Obama also stressed the need to renew U.S. alliances with other countries
and strengthen them.
Much of the material was very similar to items posted on the Obama
campaign and transition websites, but experts said it was important the
key issues were being repeated by the White House now that Obama was in
power.
The administration also said it would review each major weapons program in
light of current needs, gaps in the field and likely future threat
scenarios in the post-9/11 world.
In an apparent nod to big-ticket F-22 and F-35 fighter jets built by
Lockheed Martin Corp, the administration said the United States needed to
preserve its "unparalleled airpower capabilities" to deter and defeat any
conventional competitors, respond to crises across the globe and support
ground forces.
"We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the
revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare
capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air
refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend
global power." it said.
Boeing is vying against Northrop Grumman Corp-led team that includes
Europe's EADS for a multibillion dollar deal to replace the aging fleet of
KC-135 tankers.
In addition, the United States needed to replace aging ships and modernize
existing ones, while adapting them to the 21st century. Northrop and
General Dynamics Corp are the nation's largest shipbuilders, but Lockheed
also builds smaller, shore-hugging combat ships.
The administration said it would increase the size of the Navy's Maritime
Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in
smaller, more capable ships.
Missile defense would be supported, it said, but in a way that was
pragmatic and cost-effective and did not divert resources from other
national security priorities it was certain the current technology would
work.
The administration also said it would seek to restore U.S. leadership on
space issues with a worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military
and commercial satellites.
It pledged to assess possible threats to U.S. space assets and the best
options for countering them, including contingency plans to ensure access
to information from space assets or speeding up efforts to harden U.S.
satellites against attack.
The website also cited concerns about emerging cyber- threats and said
Washington would cooperate with its allies and the private sector in this
area.
The Pentagon would also put a greater emphasis on transparency and
accountability in government contracting.
"They will create the transparency and accountability needed for good
governance, and establish the legal status of contractor personnel, making
possible prosecution of any abuses committed by private military
contractors," the website said.
Finally, the administration said it would seek to reform defense
contracting by ending no-bid contracts, hiring more contract officers and
improving oversight of wartime spending.
"The Obama-Biden Administration will realize savings by reducing the
corruption and cost overruns that have become all too routine in defense
contracting," it said. "They will order the Justice Department to
prioritize prosecutions that will punish and deter fraud, waste and
abuse."
On the news they were talking to an analyst who said he has heard murmurings that it might now become politically savvy to actually work together and try to solve a few things. He went on to say it sounds good, until the arguments start. :)
Still, I like how he's hit the ground running. I doubt he'll rest in 4 years.
This will be fun.
The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/And a great start for the kids.
Sasha and Malia, we were seven when our beloved grandfather was sworn in as the 41st President of the United States. We stood proudly on the platform, our tiny hands icicles, as we lived history. We listened intently to the words spoken on Inauguration Day service, duty, honor. But being seven, we didn't quite understand the gravity of the position our Grandfather was committing to. We watched as the bands marched by -- the red, white, and blue streamers welcoming us to a new role: the family members of a President.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123239885943895155.htmlGreat article Bruce. I'm glad to hear that he is committed to advancing the military, instead of totally abusing it or abandoning it.
I have to appalude his actions on former administration officials who leave office and become lobbyists. That was pretty bold. To bad the Dems in Congress couldn't do that.
Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.
He's promised honest, transparent, leadership. I'll be happy with that.
Whether his goals come to fruition depends largely on congress and bureaucrats, and we should pressure them to do what we want.
I am a lot more worried about Pelosi than I am Obama. He seems extremely competent so far. She was on Larry King last night and will be again tonight. She is still on another planet. I watched a bunch of "those cable news shows" last night, mostly CNN... They are all asking how long the honeymoon will last??? WTH? The guy just sat down.
I'm sure we'll be getting "the first 100 days" comparisons.
I'm sure we'll be getting "the first 100 days" comparisons.
Why shouldn't we?
Not saying we shouldn't, just seems to be a standard thing with the media, therefore I expect it.
I don't know how they come up with 100 days as a benchmark, though? Maybe that's how long they figure the post election/inauguration momentum lasts that he can take advantage of?
plus that's when everyone is focused on tax season, and they are not too keen on the government then
Great article Bruce. I'm glad to hear that he is committed to advancing the military, instead of totally abusing it or abandoning it.
Well only an idiot would abandon the military. Military generals have vast influence and I doubt we want our military engineers working for China, Russia, or anyone else.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave a
great all-hands speech to the National labs. Rob Roser at Fermilab (who attended the speech) took the following notes. [COLOR=Red]Red [/COLOR]highlights are my emphasis.
[LIST]
[*] Energy is the defining issue of our time.
[*]Addressing the environment is the major reason Chu took on this job.
[*]These problems provide a tremendous opportunity for the DOE, but it comes with a burden: we can not fail.
[*]The DOE is the principal supporter of physical sciences in the US, and [COLOR=Red]the physical sciences are the cornerstone of prosperity[/COLOR] for the US future.
[*]This was part of the message of the “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” report.
[*][COLOR=Red]The DOE should endeavor to replace the great industrial labs that no longer exist as they once did.[/COLOR]
[*]The DOE will be the “go to” organization for a multitude of key problems — will depend on all labs to help.
[*]The DOE can quite literally “save the world” by developing a sound energy policy going forward, and invent new science that will provide new technologies.
[*]Our current use of energy not sustainable — have to move forward.
[*]We are facing something society has never been asked to do before: to deal with ominous problems with climate change. If half of the things climate science tells us are half true, we have a huge problem on our hands and the DOE has to work to provide those solutions.
[*]The Obama administration is creating a new Energy and Climate Change Council which will serve as a coordinating body including all stake holders in this arena. DOE is first and foremost in this but Interior, Agriculture, Treasury and Defense etc. all play a role.
[*]The DOE is the science and technology “arm of energy”.
[*]There is a core of truly outstanding scientists at the national labs, and these labs have trained many successful scientists.
[*][COLOR=Red]The national labs are “crown jewels that the US doesn’t want to lose”.[/COLOR]
[*]Restimulation of the economy is #1 on the priority list. DOE will get considerable funds in the stimulus package, not just to get the economy going but to provide a long term path for the US.
[*]We can’t be completely overwhelmed by the short term economic woes; we need to still find a path to solve our long term problems. The DOE has to invent transformative technologies that will allow us to get to the next level of energy independence.
[*]Chu sees [COLOR=Red]a lot of young and middle age scientists shifting careers to deal with energy[/COLOR], and the DOE is optimistic to capture the best and brightest to work on these issues.[/LIST]
I find this truly remarkable. I certainly hope to[COLOR=Black] be one of the "[/COLOR][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black]young scientists shifting careers to deal with energy[/COLOR][COLOR=Black]"![/COLOR][/COLOR]
I was really pleased when I learned that Chu was taking over DOE. There was a PBS program on the other night all about US energy policy and the future and Chu was featured extensively. He's a very smart man, and we are very lucky to have him in this position. I'm so glad Bush is gone and we are getting real scientists back into government. We are actually pointed in the right direction again.
The program sort of came to the conclusion that we need to buy some time to get alternative energy (mainly wind and solar) working for us, and to buy the time, the best choice is to build a couple nuke plants in each state.
PA has our share, about time you fuckers caught up. :haha:
Obama gets his opening grade
The Gallup Poll on Saturday released the first job-approval rating for President Obama, based on interviews during his first three full days in office: 68 percent.
Gallup’s initial job approval ratings were President John F. Kennedy, 72 percent; Dwight Eisenhower, 68 percent; Jimmy Carter, 66 percent; Richard Nixon, 59 percent; Bill Clinton, 58 percent; George W. Bush, 57 percent; and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 51 percent.
Gallup’s Obama poll included 1,591 adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Are 1500 people enough to really gauge anything?
Are 1500 people enough to really gauge anything?
No, and even if it did he's got a very long row to hoe. Polls, like the stock market or a college education, will have ups and downs but we won't know the true results in less than a year.
Interesting take:
ROOTING FOR OBAMA
[SIZE="2"]THE NATION NEEDS THE HOPE[/SIZE]
CALLS for national unity were rampant this week, as is common when the nation welcomes a new leader. But to boost our chances of overcoming the huge challenges we face, Americans - of every stripe - are going to have to take those calls seriously. And heed them long after President Obama's honeymoon ends.
Certainly, we'll have to treat our new prez a whole lot better than we did the last one. Republicans, in particular, will have to resist temptations for revenge, after Democrats savaged George Bush - and by extension, his party.
They'll have to watch the partisan attacks, cognizant of their effect on the nation's well-being. And let politics end at the water's edge, as it once did.
Republicans should admit, occasionally, when there's real progress for the country, abroad or at home. And never, ever root for national defeat, just to boost their own prospects.
Certainly the press will be kinder to Obama than it was to Bush
Think about it: When the press honestly reports America's victories, it saps the enemy's spirit and boosts our own. When folks point to light at the end of the economic tunnel, Americans gain heart, open their wallets - and indeed restart the economy. Already this month The New York Times cited economists predicting a "fast recovery." That's a welcome change, whether politically motivated or not.
He's been the media's man, too. And perhaps most important, Americans are rightly nervous about the days ahead. By now, we have little choice but to pray that he's our savior.
here may come a time when the press, the public and - who knows? - the whole world turn against Obama, as many did against Bush. And certainly, there's nothing wrong with legitimate, responsible policy debate; that's normal - and healthy.
But for now, everyone's got a big stake in the new guy's triumph. Our common fate depends on it. So watch for more bullish news. Cheer it on. And feel free to credit the new president - generously.
Root for Obama. If he wins, we all do.
Republicans should admit, occasionally, when there's real progress for the country, abroad or at home. And never, ever root for national defeat, just to boost their own prospects.
From what I've seen here in the Cellar, this will never happen, not for folks like ahem, and ahem...
DES MOINES, Iowa – Amid the pomp, circumstance and celebration of welcoming a new president, an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade sure to draw attention, even hundreds of miles from Washington, D.C.: Barack Obama, riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds and "Secret Service" escort.
As WND reported, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan declared in October that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking." But artist Matthew J. Clark's parade – marching Obama through the streets of Des Moines in similar fashion to Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem – takes the messianic imagery even farther.
The Bible describes Jesus' procession into Jerusalem in the 21st chapter of Matthew as the fulfillment of the prophet Zechariah's words, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass," or as the New International Version paraphrases, "gentle, and riding on a donkey." As the celebrated Messiah entered the city, the Bible also tells of adorers spreading their cloaks at Jesus' feet and waving palm fronds.
Charlotte Eby, columnist for Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, witnessed a strange sight earlier this week, as a sculpture of Obama marched down Des Moines' Locust Street in similar fashion.
"Progressing slowly down Locust and holding up traffic was a rubbery Barack Obama sculpture saddled on the back of a donkey," Eby writes. "A pair of black SUVs led the procession and two more trailed behind, Secret Service-style. A couple of the SUVs were decked out with tiny American flags."
The Obamessiah?
I still maintain that he is the Biblical Anti-Christ.
You think I'm wacky now, but just you wait until the Great Tribulation ...
You think I'm wacky now, but just you wait until the Great Tribulation ...
8 years of Bush? Been there, done that.
The Obamessiah?
I still maintain that he is the Biblical Anti-Christ.
You think I'm wacky now, but just you wait until the Great Tribulation ...
Praise da Lord!!!!
PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
I think her intent was correct, her verbage not so much.
How's about welfare not paying for extra babies? Depot Provera implants should be mandatory for women on welfare (if there were a viable injectable/implantable male contraceptive, I'd support that also). And drug testing.
She readily admits that it is NOT a stimulus at all. It is hopefully a reduction in costs or a savings. Nowhere did she say that it was a stimulus. There are a lot of things similar to that in this package. They may be good and have benefits, but they are not stimulating any economic recovery.
Caterpillar--cutting 20,000 jobs
Sprint/Nextel--cutting 8000 jobs
Home Depot--cutting 7000 jobs
35,000 jobs lost
I must say that Obama better get on the stick. Did anyone see the number of large companies that anounced job layoffs today? He keeps talking about how this economic plan being cooked up by the Dems in Congress and his administration are going to create all these jobs. So far I am not sure that anyone can say that a single job has been created and there are none to be created in the immediate future. Right now a lot of talk about what we need and what they are going to do, but no plan on how to make it happen.
I'm trying to be patient. :bites tongue:
Caterpillar--cutting 20,000 jobs
Sprint/Nextel--cutting 8000 jobs
Home Depot--cutting 7000 jobs
35,000 jobs lost
I must say that Obama better get on the stick. Did anyone see the number of large companies that anounced job layoffs today? He keeps talking about how this economic plan being cooked up by the Dems in Congress and his administration are going to create all these jobs. So far I am not sure that anyone can say that a single job has been created and there are none to be created in the immediate future. Right now a lot of talk about what we need and what they are going to do, but no plan on how to make it happen.
Yeah, I'm pretty pissed at myself for voting for him. It's been 6 motherfucking days, and no results that I can see. Sheesh. He sucks. :headshake
I'm trying to be patient. :bites tongue:
Don't bite to hard. And certainly don't hold your breath. Steady drum beat but no plan of attack.
I think there is definitely a plan. Its effectiveness is unknown, but it can't be any worse than the last one...can it?
Well one the one hand you have the US gov't giving bonuses to bank executives. And on the other they are talking about building roads and bridges and shit. I'd agree. Can't be any worse.
I think there is definitely a plan. Its effectiveness is unknown, but it can't be any worse than the last one...can it?
Well it won't mean squat if something actionable is not started immediately. I fear that this job creation fantasy is just that, a fantasy, not a plan. I think they believe that if they throw money at a system it will just start up like the turn of a key and jobs will be created. That would be highly unlikely.
And on the other they are talking about building roads and bridges and shit.
Let's take that one example, and I think about it because they keep repeating it. Now say they free up a bunch of money for roads and bridges specifically. Who would be first in line for that money? Most likely it would go to the individual states for their highway, roads, and bridges, or even if is a national plan, who would be first in line for that money? Well that would be those companies that are best suited to immediately fill equipment with gas and put shovels in hands and begin work right? Well no, the law requires a bidding process for public works projects by private companies. That takes time. I guess they could figure out a way to fast track that process if they even think about it. Ok, so now we have the companies that are best suited to begin work, which companies? The ones that already have all the equipment and a ready force of workers to do the job, even if they call back recently laid off workers, we are not talking about a lot of people here. And of all those who have just been laid off, how many are willing to leave a desk job and jump right on a shovel? I doubt that many. The problem is huge and not simple.
Reminds me of all the critical views on Haliburton at the start of the various wars, they were the only ones pre-positioned to do the job.
Not sure what's going to happen with that pesky infrastructure stuff, since none of the work is allowed to be done by white male construction workers, or anyone else with experience.
[youtube]LHsmLdK0R74[/youtube]
I have a little insight into that Merc. The worst part is that they are looking to REPAIR bridges and need the ones which can be completed in the shortest amount of time with the least disruption to traffic. This means that the ones which need reparations the most are not going to be worked on. That gets things moving quickly, but still leaves the bridges in the worst shape - just that, in the worst shape. Addressing them is apparently not on the "short list."
Not sure what's going to happen with that pesky infrastructure stuff, since none of the work is allowed to be done by white male construction workers, or anyone else with experience.
[youtube]LHsmLdK0R74[/youtube]
Yea, I forgot about that whole minority owned company hire thing, but isn't that really limited only to some percentage of the bids awarded?
I have a little insight into that Merc. The worst part is that they are looking to REPAIR bridges and need the ones which can be completed in the shortest amount of time with the least disruption to traffic. This means that the ones which need reparations the most are not going to be worked on. That gets things moving quickly, but still leaves the bridges in the worst shape - just that, in the worst shape. Addressing them is apparently not on the "short list."
Have you even seen a list? I have not. But I hear a lot of rhetoric about trillions of dollars and jobs being created.
Reminds me of all the critical views on Haliburton at the start of the various wars, they were the only ones pre-positioned to do the job.
With an infrastructure based spending spree, at least you end up with the infrastructure, regardless of how effective the program was at stimulating the economy. We have major highway bridges falling down. We need the infrastructure to be rebuilt. It's an investment in our future, and it will also stimulate the economy to some extent as we do it. That's how infrastructure spending is different from the fool's war in Iraq where we ended up with what we started with.
With an infrastructure based spending spree, at least you end up with the infrastructure, regardless of how effective the program was at stimulating the economy. We have major highway bridges falling down. We need the infrastructure to be rebuilt. It's an investment in our future, and it will also stimulate the economy to some extent as we do it.
But that is not how it is being sold to us. It is being sold as a jobs creation program. And the only companies that will actually benifit will be those that are pre-positioned to do the work.
But at least those pre-positioned companies won't be forced to have those layoffs they were contemplating in the near future, right?
Actually most have already layed off and are without contract jobs because the states have run out of money and only the most pressing jobs are being completed. If that were not the case there would be no discussion about how abismal our roads and bridges are. Most of the small trucking companies are but a shell of what they were or have closed all together. Hopefully Obama's plan will work and all these people use to working in air conditioned factories and behind desks in cushy offices are going to hit the fresh air and with freezing temps in the winter and blazing heat in the summer to get work.
But at least those pre-positioned companies won't be forced to have those layoffs they were contemplating in the near future, right?
That may be true, but again this is being touted as a job creation/stimulus. What it appears to be is something different. Hell, I'm not involved, but it sure is beginning to seem like something other than what we were originally told.
At least its going to do some good other than redecorating an office for 1 mil+ or going to bonuses.
35,000 jobs lost is not all that many. 2,590,000 jobs were lost in 2008.
I wondered about that, UT.
It reminds me of another article which was posted somewhere, outlining the horrors of proposed tax plans which would give "rebates" (quotation marks theirs) to people on taxes they never paid out in the first place.
And, that's different than now, how? That's pretty typical now.
sar/Perhaps those are liberal's jobs and thats why they are important.
Got the elections in 2 years/casm
This was pretty accurate:
Obama faced an early test last week, when, in the midst of the debate over economic stimulus, Democrats worked to shut Republicans out of the policy process, then behaved boorishly when Republicans complained.
Democratic leaders responded with the political equivalent of a sack dance in football. “If it’s passed with 63 votes or 73 votes, history won’t remember it,” said Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.
Yes We Did
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added to the mood by saying, “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”
There is still time for Obama to object to such behavior. If he wants to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric, he should take Pelosi to the woodshed and insist that she include Republicans, collegially, in the process. He should stand up to his party and threaten to veto a bill if it fails to make reasonable concessions to his friends across the aisle. He should advise his own staff to begin returning the phone calls of senior Republican aides.
If he fails to do that, there can be little doubt that government will fail to change and will continue to fail us. When times are good, one might be able to survive with a pitiful government. Today, we might not be so lucky. We are living in a fleeting moment where real change is possible. Aristotle is watching.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aaX0MEqeCGjAdeja vue? Didn't I just read this in another thread?
Obama has been doing a good job so far of reversing the horrible and destructive executive orders of the Bush administration and he's working to make workings of the Executive branch more transparent and accountable. He's going to reverse the military commissions act. He's ordered the withdrawal of troops from our illegal war in Iraq. He's done something great for the environment by demanding higher mileage standards and allowing California to set our own standards.
I don't really like that he's trying to put together another bail out to restart the economy. This money must come from somewhere, and that will either be from printing more money (inflation) or raising taxes. Either way this harms the economy and doesn't help it.
I expect this from Democrats though. They think government should be all things to all people. Republicans on the other hand think government should enforce Christian morality onto people despite the fact that America is not a Christian nation.
Overall I'm pleased so far with Obama's performance. I give him an B+/A-
Of course Bush was such a disgrace to America he not only got an F-
deja vue? Didn't I just read this in another thread?
May have, did I post it? If so I don't think it was intended.
This was pretty accurate:
Obama faced an early test last week, when, in the midst of the debate over economic stimulus, Democrats worked to shut Republicans out of the policy process, then behaved boorishly when Republicans complained.
Democratic leaders responded with the political equivalent of a sack dance in football. “If it’s passed with 63 votes or 73 votes, history won’t remember it,” said Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois.
Yes We Did
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added to the mood by saying, “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”
There is still time for Obama to object to such behavior. If he wants to fulfill the promise of his rhetoric, he should take Pelosi to the woodshed and insist that she include Republicans, collegially, in the process. He should stand up to his party and threaten to veto a bill if it fails to make reasonable concessions to his friends across the aisle. He should advise his own staff to begin returning the phone calls of senior Republican aides.
If he fails to do that, there can be little doubt that government will fail to change and will continue to fail us. When times are good, one might be able to survive with a pitiful government. Today, we might not be so lucky. We are living in a fleeting moment where real change is possible. Aristotle is watching.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aaX0MEqeCGjA
But it's wrong. The republicans DID get a chance to add amendments. And after they did, and the democrats voted with them on the amendments just to appease them and appease a bipartisan solution... the republicans STILL vote against it.
We shouldn't play ball if they won't. We have enough votes, shut 'em out if they wont play along.
What about the amendments they didn't feel were in the best interests of the country? How do those get removed or discussed?
Compromise.
The democratics did, the repubs didn't.
Compromise.
The democratics did, the repubs didn't.
Really? Where? The whole bill was written by Pelosi.
But it's wrong. The republicans DID get a chance to add amendments. And after they did, and the democrats voted with them on the amendments just to appease them and appease a bipartisan solution... the republicans STILL vote against it...
The dems gave comprosises, Repubs were allowed a chance to put their voice in. Got some amendments, ect ect ect. Dems didn't stay staunch and keep the EXACT bill they wrote, they made changes to appease Repubs. Just wasn't good enough for the losers I guess.
More from the Demoncratic Wish List, none of which create jobs. Not that some of this does not need funding, but that is not what this bill was intended to do.
$335 million for education related to sexually transmitted diseases
"We have yet to hear any reasonable rationale for how this creates any jobs in the private sector," Paige tod "GMA."
$650 million for coupons to help people make the switch to digital TV
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$150 million for the Smithsonian Institution
$50 million for the National Cemetery Administration's monument and memorial repairs
$800 million for Amtrak, the country's railroad system
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$400 million for global warming research
$100 million for reducing the danger of lead paint in homes
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$50 million for NASA facilities that may have been harmed by natural disaster
$200 million for the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor earthquakes and volcanoes
$650 million for the U.S. Forest Service to remove fish passage barriers, forest improvement and watershed enhancement projects
$1.5 million for a National Institute of Health/Institute of Medicine report to Congress
$50.6 million for services for older blind individuals
$400 million for the Social Security Administration's new National Computer Center
$325 million for Academic Achievement Awards
$70 million for programs to help people quit smoking
$75 million for a super-computer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6757733&page=1$2 billion for child-care subsidies
I can see this one. I personally know a couple women who want to go back to work, and even have jobs they could take--but at a lower pay than the jobs they just lost, and the new lower rate won't cover the cost of childcare, so they're just staying home instead. Subsidizing their childcare costs would provide a job for the daycare worker, and allow the parents to get back in the workforce and be productive, at which point they will have more disposable income to spend at the retail stores, etc. etc.
All the rest though, not so much.
I think a lot of stuff can aid people going back to work. In fact a lot of the stuff will create jobs, but they would be very limited in scope as to their effects. Obama promised us hundreds of thousands of jobs, not a few hundred for IT people at NOAA or Stop Smoking cesation programs. Child care, eh, I definately would give you that one. The devil is in the details and so far no one knows what those are. Even those voting yes on them.
What is good for the goose, eh forget it, another tax doger nominated. Only the middle and upper income people should pay taxes, well unless you are a democratic nominee. I can't believe these guys are not better vetted. You shouldn't have to run out and pay your back taxes if you have been properly vetted in the first place, you should be off the short list.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.htmlhttp://www.stimuluswatch.org/
This site helps drill down to some of the jobs being created, the cost, the project. Fairly interesting and informative stuff.
StimulusWatch.org was built to to help the new administration keep its pledge and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. We do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the proposed "shovel-ready" projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects.
There is also
http://www.recovery.gov/
its an Obama administration thing though, so I doubt it'll be very objective. Its still not yet up, not really anything for them to update it with.
There is also http://www.recovery.gov/
its an Obama administration thing though, so I doubt it'll be very objective. Its still not yet up, not really anything for them to update it with.
I can barely trust any news site or site that claims to be "non-partisan", often many turn out to be owned or financed by Soro's or some Right-wing equivalent. I certainly would not trust a site hosted by Obama any more than most would trust info from a site hosted by Bush.
All things should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because you expect that some of the info is twisted doesn't mean it isn't insightful. You can learn, even from lies.
The dems gave comprosises, Repubs were allowed a chance to put their voice in. Got some amendments, ect ect ect. Dems didn't stay staunch and keep the EXACT bill they wrote, they made changes to appease Repubs.
Exactly what amendments were made in the house bill that went to the floor for the vote - aside from killing the money for planned
notparenthood?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html
"Obama also persuaded House Democrats to remove provisions related to family-planning from the stimulus and -- over the objections of many Democrats -- inserted large tax cuts for businesses that Republicans wanted."
So Obama got family-planning removed. What is wrong with family planning? Why is it a bad thing to help the mid and lower class from having children they can't afford and therefore keeping them off of welfare? Or from having to get more government support than they might already be on? I'm a big supporter of family-planning and I think that aiding it, no matter the economic situation, is always a benefit. I know Planned Parenthood was a big benefit to me, in fact my insurance was changed (b/c of the economy and co is saving money) and now is shitty and I'm probably goin to have to start using them again to get my birth control.
They got more tax cuts, which is a major thing they have been crying for.
Asked by the Huffington Post what spending provisions Republicans would support, Cantor said, "I think that if you have infrastructure programs that are meaningful, impactful, and put jobs back into place immediately within the first twelve months, you have a legitimate case for that to be a stimulus.
The stimulus plan provides some $550 billion in direct investment for modernizing infrastructure, expanding broadband, and improving health care delivery systems. Funding is also aimed at shoring up state and local budgets that have gone deeply into the red, preventing layoffs of state workers.
So they want infastructure that is meaningful, impactful, and to get more jobs back? What was their plan for that? All I hear is whining over the democrats plan, no plan of their own.
To top it off, the democrat's plan has $550billion of the $800+billion dedicated to just that.
The dems are working more off of the
Keynesian economic theory. The repubs want our natural entrepreneurship to save us.
I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base? If a person is frustrating, pigheaded and outright hostile to work with, are you going to work with them? No. I'm not saying that the republicans are all like this, but I can't help but think that dems are not the only ones with character flaws.
Maybe the republican voters should take another look at their republican representatives.
What is wrong with family planning?
Nothing at all, but this is about saving our economy and putting people to work, not about social programs the Dems have been trying to pass for years and couldn't. This should not be a bill where special interest groups get to hop on the money train. I fully support family planning and free birth control for anyone who wants it. This does not create jobs as Obama and Pelosi promised.
So they want infastructure that is meaningful, impactful, and to get more jobs back? What was their plan for that? All I hear is whining over the democrats plan, no plan of their own.
To top it off, the democrat's plan has $550billion of the $800+billion dedicated to just that.
Great, then save us 250 billion on the deficit and take out the crap social programs, save it for another bill. Whining? Please. The bill was completely crafted by Pelosi and the Demoncrats behind closed doors. They own everything in it that it does or fails to do to save our economy and create jobs as promised.
I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base?
Yes, absolutely, because they completely control both houses and the executive branch. They own it. Everything that works and fails.
CIA's counter-terrorism rendition program gets nod from Obama
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Greg Miller in Washington
February 2, 2009
UNDER executive orders issued by the US President, Barack Obama, last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as "renditions", or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that co-operate with the United States.
Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role because it was the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cias-counterterrorism-rendition-program-gets-nod-from-obama/2009/02/01/1233423045649.htmlCIA's counter-terrorism rendition program gets nod from Obama
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Greg Miller in Washington
February 2, 2009
UNDER executive orders issued by the US President, Barack Obama, last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as "renditions", or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that co-operate with the United States.
Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role because it was the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cias-counterterrorism-rendition-program-gets-nod-from-obama/2009/02/01/1233423045649.html
Rendition is nothing new. Hopefully, the difference will be to do it legally, within acceptable international standards...like not sending a prisoner to a location where it is expected that he would be tortured or killed by the authorities of that country.
If Obama is going to close Gitmo...there will need to be some form of "rendition" of those prisoners...unless the plan is to hold them in US prisons or release them unconditionally, and neither option is under consideration.
The same Executive Order does specifically prohibit interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under our international treaty obligations.
Rendition is nothing new.
True. But it was never exercised before like it was under Bush. Clinton authorized it as well but the cases were few and far between.
If Obama is going to close Gitmo...there will need to be some form of "rendition" of those prisoners...unless the plan is to hold them in US prisons or release them unconditionally, and neither option is under consideration.
That is not what Obama has done in this act. That is a completely different subject. I do not believe that most of the inhabitants at Gitmo were placed there do to a rendition program under Bush.
The same Executive Order does specifically prohibit interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under our international treaty obligations.
Other executive orders have or will. The concept of "torture under our international treaty obligations" is a subject that has received much debate. Anyone claims to be able to define it is deluded.
The concept of "torture under our international treaty obligations" is a subject that has received much debate. Anyone claims to be able to define it is deluded.
If it is subject to debate, and I agree it is, it should be adjudicated by the judicial branch (even it it had to be in secret) and NOT determined by the DoJ attorneys who provided Bush with an interpretation that justified the actions.
Checks and balances!
If it is subject to debate, and I agree it is, it should be adjudicated by the judicial branch (even it it had to be in secret) and NOT determined by the DoJ attorneys who provided Bush with an interpretation that justified the actions.
Checks and balances!
Why? You think that the DOJ under Obama is not going to do the same thing and have their own interpretations about things. Hell, take a look at Janet Reno. There is a long running history and precident set, and it wasn't by Bush.
What did Reno do that was potentially illegal?
Bush took unilateral determination of matters of constitutional law to a new level on several fronts....with his interpretation of an AUMF to authorize anything remotely associated with his "war on terror" as "legal" being the most egregious.
Reno failed to name independent counsel to investigate campaign finance tactics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions.
She gave the orders to burn down a building with un-armed women and children in it in Texas. Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime.
She was a party to the murder of an unarmed woman holding a baby by the FBI. Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional.
Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.
Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths.
Janet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces.
The list goes on...
Reno failed to name independent counsel to investigate campaign finance tactics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions.
Reno authorized an FBI investigation that found no violations of law.
The call for a special prosecutor was purely political....much like the whole Whitewater fiasco and the Republican congressional investigation of the White House christmas card list, the firing of the WH travel office, and the Clinton's cat, socks.
She gave the orders to burn down a building with un-armed women and children in it in Texas. Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime.
She was a party to the murder of an unarmed woman holding a baby by the FBI. Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional.
There are two sides to these sad incidents.
Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.
All US attorneys are generally fired at the start of a new president's term.
In fact, Bush had every right to fire the US attorneys at any time....the issue was Gonzales lying to Congress about why they were fired...and the subsequent discovery that the Bush DoJ illegally used political "tests" for career (non-US attorney) appointments, particularly in the Civil Rights division.
Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths.
I dont know a thing about this one.
anet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces.
I believe there was precedent to seek an opinion that civil actions against a president can be deferred until such time as the president becomes a private citizen.
Janet Reno fired William Sessions and replaced him with Louis Freeh on July 19, 1993, the day before the body of Vince Foster was found in Fort Marcy Park, Under Freeh, the FBI has entered the most incompetent, unaccountable period in its history as shown by these facts: - Louis Freeh promoted his close friend Larry Potts despite the assistant FBI director's responsibility for both the disastrous Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges - Freeh's FBI illegally gave Clinton Administration personnel over 900 files, including those on political adversaries.
I simply refuse to engage in any conspiracy discussion about Vince Foster.
I don't consider the facts surrounding the appointments as conspiracy theory. I don't support the notion that there was something else there other than obstruction.
MTP - I agree that much of the money being spent in this plan is for "worthy causes", but this is a STIMULUS BILL. The overwhelming intent, if not the entirety of this bill, as promised repeatedly, is to generate jobs and jumpstart the economy. At another time and under different circumstances, a bill like this would be wonderful. This is not a stimulus bill - thats the point we are debating here. Call it something else and the reaction would be very, very different. I'd be very interested to see the reaction if this bill was brought to the house under any other name.
I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base? If a person is frustrating, pigheaded and outright hostile to work with, are you going to work with them? No. I'm not saying that the republicans are all like this, but I can't help but think that dems are not the only ones with character flaws.
Maybe the republican voters should take another look at their republican representatives.
Try looking at that statement without the labels Dem & Rep. I think that is a little more accurate. This has been going on for a long time and the party with a majority has always done this. The difference this time is that there is such an overwhelming disparity in the numbers of representatives from each party. The D's have virtually all the power right now and do not need the R's to pass anything. They have the power to do it all without them.
Regarding the last line - think of it this way. Isn't that the reason why the R's are in the minority? The voters did exactly that.
I simply refuse to engage in any conspiracy discussion about Vince Foster.
Of all the conspiracy theories about Clinton, that one is the dumbest.
And the most optimistic.
Hello! People! Spending IS stimulus! Why don't you get that?
Hello! People! Spending IS stimulus! Why don't you get that?
Demoncratic talking point.
Demoncratic talking point.
"Demoncratic"? :neutral:
The only way an economy grows is if people are spending money. If no one's prepared to spend, no one's making a profit.
Hello! People! Spending IS stimulus! Why don't you get that?
The only way an economy grows is if people are spending money. If no one's prepared to spend, no one's making a profit.
If there is no confidence in the economy, those with money are going to keep it. The only ones spending will be the ones at the bottom of the scale who are too ignorant (no disrespect intended) to save. The economy need the general public, the middle and the wealthy to spend to survive and improve - period. No one disagrees on this. How to get this group to spend is the question. Talking the economy down and threatening certainly won't help.
People can't put off purchases forever. Eventually they have to start spending again. Usually that's when house prices drop so low that any old person can afford to buy one, so first off you have a whole new group of people buying houses which promotes growth in economic terms, but also in terms of labour. More jobs equals more spending equals more purchases equals more jobs etc etc etc. Inflation starts to rise and we all jump on the same merry go round again.
It's a cycle. It will correct itself eventually. Maybe some people will make wiser decisions next time round.
You don't always need the prettiest horse to get ahead. ;)
People can't put off purchases forever. Eventually they have to start spending again. Usually that's when house prices drop so low that any old person can afford to buy one, so first off you have a whole new group of people buying houses which promotes growth in economic terms, but also in terms of labour. More jobs equals more spending equals more purchases equals more jobs etc etc etc. Inflation starts to rise and we all jump on the same merry go round again.
It's a cycle. It will correct itself eventually. Maybe some people will make wiser decisions next time round.
People are only spending on the bare necessities though. Housing price will probably continue to fall for another year or two. People may be able to afford them, but getting the loans has become a much more daunting task. I was speaking with a client who is in that field and he was explaining to me how much more paperwork and scrutiny the applicants are dealing with. I'm not really sure thats a bad thing either. Perhaps the banks shouldn't have loaned just anyone money.
I have begun to wonder how any of these plans are going to work. Be it tax cuts or massive spending. IIRC, The Soviet Union spent massively during the cold war and that didn't work out so well, nor did Japans plan to get out of it's issues a decade a go. They tried to spend their way out and that failed.
Well, from my personal experience, the first place I bought which was about 15 years ago, we paid $85k for a lowset 3 bedroom brick and tile on a 700 square metre block and had to have 10% deposit, which was really no big deal at that price. That was at the bottom of the market after the recession we had in the early 90's. We had to have lots of stuff to qualify for the loan, but it was simple because the main criteria was the deposit and a steady job. Shortly after we purchased that house, the market started to improve and we sold it for over 30k more than we paid for it. (that was handy because the reason we sold it was because our relationship fell apart) House prices continued to increase and even today when prices have slumped slightly, you'd pay about 400k for that house, maybe slightly less, but it'll drop way more.
Banks here are already moving from low documentation home loans to full documentation home loans, and the days of 100% mortgages are pretty much over.
People can't put off purchases forever. Eventually they have to start spending again. Usually that's when house prices drop so low that any old person can afford to buy one, so first off you have a whole new group of people buying houses which promotes growth in economic terms, but also in terms of labour. More jobs equals more spending equals more purchases equals more jobs etc etc etc. Inflation starts to rise and we all jump on the same merry go round again.
It's a cycle. It will correct itself eventually. Maybe some people will make wiser decisions next time round.
You don't always need the prettiest horse to get ahead. ;)
Yes, but if people don't have jobs, then they can't buy houses, or anything else. Apparently, right now the only way to save jobs, or to create them, is the federal government. Sad, I know, but corporate America certainly isn't hiring.
There's a lot further to go down before anyone starts going up again. In the mean time, people will simply do the best they can with what's on offer. The fact that no one will have money is exactly why house prices will drop. Eventually they will get to a level that even low income earners can afford, and then the market will start to pick up.
In many ways, these stimulus packages that the US and Australian governments are offering are really just a bandaid cure for the inevitable. It's too late to stop what must happen now.
Well, I agree, somewhat, but I also think the stimulus, in the right form (spending), will keep the recession from going as deep and as long as it would if we do nothing, IF they spend enough. We are losing more than a half million jobs a month. Something needs to be done about that. The private sector isn't doing anything, they are cutting jobs. The only option left is government.
Why do so many people think government has no role in anything? Personally, I'm an anarchist, so I don't like a lot of government interference in my personal life. But IMHO, this is one of the roles government actually should play.
Why do so many people think government has no role in anything? Personally, I'm an anarchist
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I know what it means. And if it were possible to have a country with no government, that would be awesome.
I know what it means. And if it were possible to have a country with no government, that would be awesome.
Yeah. I like your shit. So I'll kill you and take it. Or maybe just enslave you. What happens to your family is up to my whim. Or the whim of someone even more fucked in the head than I am.
That's anarchy. Ain't it just AWESOME?
Why do so many people think government has no role in anything? Personally, I'm an anarchist, so I don't like a lot of government interference in my personal life. But IMHO, this is one of the roles government actually should play.
That is not anarchy nor is it the thinking of an anarchist. You talk out of both sides of your mouth if that is what you really think. You hail the efforts of Obama and the Demoncratic tax and spend plan but yet you say you want to keep government out of your life. You can't have it both ways and you certainly can't think that Obama and the currently Demoncratically controlled congress is going to conduct operations that are designed to stay out of the life of the population. That is not their plan.
Well, I'm not saying the government shouldn't help its people. What I'm saying is, it really wont matter in the long run.
This current freight train to financial hell has to run its course cause someone forgot to fix the brakes.
Yeah. I like your shit. So I'll kill you and take it. Or maybe just enslave you. What happens to your family is up to my whim. Or the whim of someone even more fucked in the head than I am.
That's anarchy. Ain't it just AWESOME?
In a truly anarchistic society, the people would not allow that to happen. They would make their own laws, and punishment. But, that is also why it won't work. People are not capable of that kind of society, yet, at least not on a large scale.
That is not anarchy nor is it the thinking of an anarchist. You talk out of both sides of your mouth if that is what you really think. You hail the efforts of Obama and the Demoncratic tax and spend plan but yet you say you want to keep government out of your life. You can't have it both ways and you certainly can't think that Obama and the currently Demoncratically controlled congress is going to conduct operations that are designed to stay out of the life of the population. That is not their plan.
I want government out of MY life, as long as I'm not doing harm to another. I think business needs to be heavily regulated though.
And I would prefer government NOT have to spend to get us out of this mess. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is any longer an option, if we want to lessen the effects of the recession.
In a truly anarchistic society, the people would not allow that to happen. They would make their own laws, and punishment. But, that is also why it won't work. People are not capable of that kind of society, yet, at least not on a large scale.
Then we'll file it with "True Communism", "The Free Market", and all the other political utopian myths.
And hey, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean one can't aspire to those principles. Most of the people I know are what you would call socialist anarchists.
And hey, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean one can't aspire to those principles. Most of the people I know are what you would call socialist anarchists.
Yeah, I know how they feel, being a reptillian mammal.
Most of the people I know are what you would call socialist anarchists.
Perhaps you need to get out more? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you need to get out more? :rolleyes:
hey, I happen to like those people. :D You probably would too if you knew them.
...orrrr... maybe not.
Transparency? It sure is change.
HOW OBAMA GETS THINGS DONE
By Neal Boortz @ March 2, 2009
Barack Obama .. he's a do whatever you have to do to win kinda guy. Don't you just love that about him? So ... how does Obama plan to ram through his healthcare and energy schemes? After all, he doesn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Surely there's something he can do. As a matter of fact, there is! He will use a procedural tactic that would only require 50 votes in order to pass the Senate. Here's the deal. You include your health "reforms" in a budget reconciliation bill. These bills require only 50 votes to pass and no filibuster is permitted. Peter Orszag is the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Now he says that he would prefer that this budget reconciliation process not be used, but, after all, health care is crucial ... and when you dealing with something so very important like this you may just have to use some awkward tactics. After all ... as Orszag says, healthcare is "the key to our fiscal future." More like the key to increased government dependency.
Health care isn't the only thing Obama will get through using this tactic. Obama has a grand new taxation plan out there called "carbon cap and trade." Look for this to become law by the same means.
Do you doubt that our wonderful, amazing, greatest president in the history of this country would try some devious tactics to enact his socialist agenda? Permit me to remind you how he won his very first election to public office. He didn't win at the ballot box ... he won by sending his cohorts to the courthouses to work on disqualifying all of his opponents. If you can't beat them, have them removed from the ballot. Whatever works is good enough for Obama ... including nationalizing our healthcare through budgetary trickery.
Maybe this rhetoric from Orszag has something to do with it. He says, "I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being pro-market is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations."
Simply put ... what a jerk. Orszag seems to be every bit the anti-capitalist his boss is. Stand by for health care rationing my friends. For those of you who don't believe it could ever happen ... I would really like to be there when some half-assed government bureaucrat tells you that you just don't qualify for some medical procedure because there are others younger and more worthy than you who have longer to live and more to accomplish.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/how-obama-gets-things-done.htmlTransparency? It sure is change.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/how-obama-gets-things-done.html
Boortz. :lol:
Why think for yourself, when pundits can do it for you?
You can't find out what is going on inside Washington if you don't read what others report. You can choose not to read it and look like the large bird with your head stuck in the sand. I choose to read it and learn what is going on from those in the know. I form my own opinions about it's impact.
You can't find out what is going on inside Washington if you don't read what others report.
Opinion is not "reporting", whether it be Boortz, Rhodes, Limbaugh, or Olbermann.
You can't find out what is going on inside Washington if you don't read what others report. You can choose not to read it and look like the large bird with your head stuck in the sand. I choose to read it and learn what is going on from those in the know. I form my own opinions about it's impact.
Its important to distinguish between "those in the know" who attempt to report objectively and "those in know" who attempt to pass off their opinion as factual.
To only read those with whom you might have a preconceived affinity is self-limiting.
The more sources and perspectives one reads, the more informed one becomes.
Absolutely. And I will keep an eye on the report that Obama plans to use this tactic with the Dems in Congress to pass their plans. So far I have no reason to believe they will not do so.
Transparency? It sure is change.
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03/how-obama-gets-things-done.html
hmpft. After all the years and years and years of deregultion and tax cuts that benefit mainly the top percentage of the wealthy, we need some way to get things done, when we have a bunch of republicans who are bent on saying no to everything. jesus.
Listen to this interview Fareed Zacharia did with Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator of the Financial Times:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/03/01/gps.martin.wolf.intv.cnn
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f794-11dd-81f7-000077b07658.htmlObama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.
1) On people making more than $250,000.
$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike
Total: $636 billion/10 years
2) Businesses:
$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit
Total: $353 billion/10 years
How is a tax cut expiring a new tax?
The capital gains tax is going up to 20%. woooo. IMO, capitals gains taxes should be MUCH higher, and income taxes should be lower. Why should money that isn't actually earned by work be taxed less than money that you physically work for?
I'm glad he's getting rid of some of the tax breaks oil companies and corporations get. yea! They don't need tax breaks. They make tens of billions of dollars every quarter. Why should they get tax breaks?
I REEEEALLY liked what he said yesterday about ending waste in government contracts. I have been bitching about that for years. So YEA! Did anyone else catch it? You can read it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12988730/President-Obamas-Remarks-on-Wasteful-Spending-and-Cutting-Big-Contracts-March-4-2009
"...Obama's announcement appeared designed to counter Republican arguments that spending rather than efficiency guided his budget priorities. The president plans to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term, and he said yesterday that the results of the contracting review would save an estimated $40 billion a year. McCain and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) will be managing contracting reform legislation, Obama said, and William J. Lynn III, a former Raytheon lobbyist who is now deputy defense secretary, will be responsible for procurement reform.
Some government monitoring groups said Obama's decision to highlight contracting excess is nearly as important as the substance of the review itself. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said that "by giving this speech, President Obama has highlighted the culture of corruption in contracting in Washington and is embracing the necessary changes to fix it." ..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030401690.htmlWhy should money that isn't actually earned by work be taxed less than money that you physically work for?
Wasn't it already taxed when it was income?
Nope. Money made off of other money. Maybe the first money invested was taxed, but like HM said, not the profits. This is another way wealthy people get away with paying less taxes than everyone else, since those at the top end up investing most of their money. And, when they lose money, they get a big fat writeoff.
Also, the entire notion of "already taxed" is silly. Your income is "already taxed" by the Feds when you pay state or local income tax. Your money is "already taxed" by income tax when you use it to buy goods and services and pay sales tax. The money that stores use to pay their employees was "already taxed" by sales tax on the product that the stores sold. Money is fungible; money that has been "already taxed" is exactly the same as money that hasn't. When you use that money in another way, it is subject to the taxes on that use.
I never thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
Well said HM - I hadn't looked at it that way.
Yes, you should definitely place higher taxes on the fruits of a positive behavior. That'll teach people to save and invest more.
I find it strange that the people who most often support raising capital gains taxes are the least likely to understand how a capital gain is realized in the first place. It seems the usual reaction is 'someone has money making money??? let's take some from those rich bastards!'
I think capital gains tax is a rort. If someone owns one investment property and then sells it, they have to give half of the profit to the government, and the government taxes the shit out of you in the first place anyway.
I don't think it should exist.
Yes, you should definitely place higher taxes on the fruits of a positive behavior. That'll teach people to save and invest more.
I find it strange that the people who most often support raising capital gains taxes are the least likely to understand how a capital gain is realized in the first place. It seems the usual reaction is 'someone has money making money??? let's take some from those rich bastards!'
Or "Let's penalize people for investing in Malaysian sweatshops".
Split it between stateside investments (lower capital gains) and overseas investments (higher capital gains). Anything in a grey area to be considered overseas.
Why would that be a good thing?
Yes, you should definitely place higher taxes on the fruits of a positive behavior. That'll teach people to save and invest more.
Good frigging God that says it all......:headshake
I still say money you actually work for should be taxed a lot less than money earned from investments.
I still say money you actually work for should be taxed a lot less than money earned from investments.
I say it isn't going to matter. Both sides are spending so fast, you can just save $100 for use as bumwad.
Congress wants to spend on itself in new bill
(CNN) -- Yet again, we find ourselves asking when Congress is going to get the hint when it comes to squandering our tax money at a time when we have so little of it. You've already heard us talk about the more than 8,000 earmarks, aka pork, clinging to the emergency spending bill that could soon head to President Obama's desk.
That same bill, which was designed to keep the federal government functioning through September, contains a nearly 11 percent increase in congressional spending on Congress, itself. That translates to a nearly half-billion dollar jump over last year. And where's the money going?
Well, among the highlights, 9.5 million of these urgently-needed dollars will be used toward refurbishing committee rooms in the House of Representatives. There's also cost-of-living pay raises for congressional staffers and expense accounts up to $40,000 for some lawmakers. Once again they forget that sometimes symbolism does equal substance.
In a year when millions of Americans are forced to tighten their own budgets, a year where the new President froze pay for some of his senior staff the day after he took office, why would Congress think the best way to improve its image is to blow money on renovating committee rooms?
advertisement
How about improving your look where it really counts? Try some belt-tightening of your own for a change! If nothing else, you'll have something in common with the people you were elected to serve.
Maybe Obama gets it, maybe not. But its crystal clear to me that congress is on autopilot and its just business as usual for them. There is no crisis, no catastrophe. Its just another day in paradise, livin the high life and spending other peoples money.
Yea, remember about that pass through for their pork, this is one of them.
Yea, remember about that pass through for their pork, this is one of them.
40% or so of the pork is for the GOP.
You seem like a smart guy, Merc...so why do you run around believing half of the lies?
40% or so of the pork is for the GOP.
What does that change?
But its crystal clear to me that congress is on autopilot and its just business as usual for them. There is no crisis, no catastrophe.
I believe it shook them out of their boots when Bernanke and Paulsen said do nothing and the entire economy will collapse. Congress' problem has more to do with direction. They could respond quickly to the crisis but could not agree on a direction. Very little history exists for how to fix an economy like this. Almost all facts come from overseas meaning most Americans (and Congressmen) do not appreciate the value of those lessons. Even the definition of 'systemic risk' is arbitrary - maybe nothing more than wild speculation. Can anyone really say AIG in bankruptcy would destroy the economy? Congress has no direction because no one really *knows* what (at their level) works.
Worse is an apparent lack of appreciation for a major problem. Accounting (the spread sheets) are still to often a pack of lies. There appears to be no interest in restoring domestic accounting standards to something that more resembles honesty. No, that would not fix the economy. But the elimination of Enron accounting is essential for our log term economic stability. That one objective should be obvious. As of yet, no sign that Congress wants to touch it.
Why would they? The way they are now is making ALL OF THEM rich as shit? There is no incentive for them to actually do what they were elected to do. Well there is sorta, but its not enough to beat the legal scam they got going now.
What does that change?
Nothing. You missed the second half of my post, apparently.
I don't think you saw it. I don't think you CAN see it.
Why would they? The way they are now is making ALL OF THEM rich as shit? There is no incentive for them to actually do what they were elected to do. Well there is sorta, but its not enough to beat the legal scam they got going now.
What is making ALL members of Congress rich as shit?
Pleas explain "the scam they got going now."
Hell, I have a greater net worth than many members of Congress and I'm no millionaire.
well, there are plenty of rich people in Congress, but most of them had money before they were elected.
scam = extremely sweet deal. ie retirement after serving only one term. Pay grade that puts them in the top, what, 2 percentile. Lobbyists [COLOR="White"](like you - just kidding!)[/COLOR]at their virtual beck and call. Those long hours. Automatic pay raises.
Between 2004 and 2006, members of Congress’ net worth increased an average of 84% – book advances, speaking engagements, stock and land deals, privileged mortgages, etc.
Perks that most people couldn't even dream of.
scam = extremely sweet deal. ie retirement after serving only one term. Pay grade that puts them in the top, what, 2 percentile. Lobbyists [COLOR="White"](like you - just kidding!)[/COLOR]at their virtual beck and call. Those long hours. Automatic pay raises.
Perks that most people couldn't even dream of.
In fact, members of the House become DO NOT become vested in the retirement system after one term. I think its five years or three terms. Thats not so different from many private employee retirement plans.
The so called "scam" with speaking engagements, lland/stock deals, etc was addressed in the Democrats ethics reform in 07...and very few members of Congress get book deals.
Yes, they make a good salary....so what? Many also support two homes...one in their district and one in DC.
That doesnt equal "rich as shit" (unless you have a very low standard for shit)
What is their average net worth?
Median net worth of members of Congress is about $500-$600k
Many have negative net worth......the bottom 25:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=C&sort=AOK...I thought you were mad because of the pay raise, which comes from wages paid by us, the taxpayers.
If others choose to perk some of them, what does that have to do with the pay raise you are against?
I was referring to this
chart
OK...I thought you were mad because of the pay raise, which comes from wages paid by us, the taxpayers.
If others choose to perk some of them, what does that have to do with the pay raise you are against?
I'm not mad at the pay raise - I don't like that its automatic though. I would like them to openly vote for it, like everything else.
I think Congress should get a constant multiple of the Federal minimum wage.
I was referring to this chart
Average is not as meaningful as median.
Average the top (Harmon's $397 million) and the bottom (Hastings -$5 million) and you still have an "average" of nearly $200 million....so what? how meaningful is that?
I have a problem with them getting raises every year when they aren't willing to address raising the minimum wage every year and giving the lowest earners a REAL living wage.
you still have an "average" of nearly $200 million....so what? how meaningful is that?
I dunno, Anyone here have 1/200th of that? Post next.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have over a billion dollars in personal wealth. Really. Who needs that much money?
I dunno, Anyone here have 1/200th of that? Post next.
Hey, when you make a claim that ALL members of Congress are getting "rich as shit", I'm just trying to understand how these bottom 25 in net worth ($0 or less) are getting rich:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2007&filter=C&sort=A
IMO, its no better than your equally bold statement that virtually ALL economists dont share Obama's economic growth projections.
The facts dont support your generalizations.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to have over a billion dollars in personal wealth. Really. Who needs that much money?
WTF?
allowed? Do you not have even the slightest idea what made this country successful?
Yes, I do. Do YOU?
Why do you think we don't grant titles of nobility in this country? Why do you think it's written into the constitution that patents and copyrights should be for a limited amount of time?
Those are totally unrelated to the issue of limiting how much of a person's earnings they have the right to keep. If I earn $100 I have to pay taxes and the rest is mine. If I earn $100,000,000,000 I should pay taxes and then... not get to keep the rest of it?
FWIW - Anyone here believe that Joe Biden is worth only $215,997. There is no way on earth that is possible.
Also, Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla) 2005, 2006, 2007 $-2,115,006
What are the odds of this man having the EXACT same net worth 3 years in a row?
I also noticed that in 2007, 20 of the bottom 25 were D's and 14 of the top 25 were D's. Not sure what that means, but it makes me question this data.
Net worth figures are easy to mess with. One person could give five different figures without lying. It all depends on the assets and expenses included or excluded.
Those are totally unrelated to the issue of limiting how much of a person's earnings they have the right to keep. If I earn $100 I have to pay taxes and the rest is mine. If I earn $100,000,000,000 I should pay taxes and then... not get to keep the rest of it?
The point is, those things were written into the Constitution because the FFs didn't want to create a country of peasants and nobility, or one where the nobility had all the money and power, and where they could run roughshod over the people. So we don't have titles of nobility, but one could argue that we have nobility just the same. We have created the same inequality that existed in Europe that the FFs were hoping to avoid.
They wrote the thing about patents and copyrights to create innovation and progress. They wanted people to invent things for the good of society, not for the good of the self. Greed and corruption were the things they were fighting. You know, it was
a revolution. They were fighting the establishment.
Net worth figures are easy to mess with. One person could give five different figures without lying. It all depends on the assets and expenses included or excluded.
I understand that, but to end up with the EXACT same amount 3 years in a row - to the penny? smell that? somethings fishy.
Something stinks and it ain't the litterbox. :D
God help me. It's late and I'm delerious.
They wanted people to invent things for the good of society, not for the good of the self. Greed and corruption were the things they were fighting.
Bullshit. They were fighting to keep the government from taking what they earned for themselves. The idea that they fought the tax policies of the King because they wanted people to NOT keep the fruits of their labor is a little bizarre don't you think?
They were fighting the establishment.
Yes, the establishment who was taking their money, without giving them a say in the matter. That is quite a bit different than fighting the establishment so the government could decide how much money a person or family was allowed to create and keep.
I understand that, but to end up with the EXACT same amount 3 years in a row - to the penny? smell that? somethings fishy.
Classic, I see what you are saying and it very well could be fishy, but it also might be perfectly legal. Neither of us knows. Let me put it this way. My company's income has been all over the place in the last few years, but my personal income for my taxes has been the exact same down to the penny - because that is the magic number I need to pay only the the smallest possible amount of taxes I can legally do. The rest is all just money games. [COLOR="White"]Which is why I'm a huge fan of the flat tax, but that is for a different thread.[/COLOR]
Bullshit. They were fighting to keep the government from taking what they earned for themselves. The idea that they fought the tax policies of the King because they wanted people to NOT keep the fruits of their labor is a little bizarre don't you think?
Yes, the establishment who was taking their money, without giving them a say in the matter. That is quite a bit different than fighting the establishment so the government could decide how much money a person or family was allowed to create and keep.
Good grief. The Constitution was written AFTER we won independence.
Good grief. The Constitution was written AFTER we won independence.
You got me there. and they were separated by a few years too, so they must be completely unrelated, right?
10 years. The first plan, which let the states handle pretty much everything, didn't work out.
Many of the same men who fought for independence were involved in the constitutional congress. Are you suggesting that ten years and a false start means the struggle and the final chosen form of government are unrelated?
No, not at all. Those 10 years were ample time to prove the old was wasn't going to work and they had to come up with a whole new system.
The Bill of Rights, which is paramount to our system, was written to bring the people mistrustful of a central government on board.
Bullshit. They were fighting to keep the government from taking what they earned for themselves. The idea that they fought the tax policies of the King because they wanted people to NOT keep the fruits of their labor is a little bizarre don't you think?
Copyrights weren't 95 years long in their version.
From Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Seems pretty clear to me.
Maybe these links will help put in perspective exactly what that clause means.
A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
Copyright Term, Retrospective Extension, and the Copyright Law of 1790
in Historical Context
http://www.dklevine.com/archive/copyright1790.pdfOoooo great a discussion of what the Constitution means. :D
Copyrights weren't 95 years long in their version.
How long were they?
They were for 14 years. I posted links about early copyright and patent law.
They were for 14 years. I posted links about early copyright and patent law.
My bad.
However, the constitution itself places no such limit on intellectual property laws.
There is no difference between saying that your idea is only your property for 14 years before anyone can use it, and saying that your home is only your property for 14 years, and then anyone can move in.
However, the constitution itself places no such limit on intellectual property laws.
Yes it does. Not the exact term, but the fact that it is only for a limited time.
There is no difference between saying that your idea is only your property for 14 years before anyone can use it, and saying that your home is only your property for 14 years, and then anyone can move in.
Does your home automatically increase in size every time another family moves in?
Yes it does. Not the exact term, but the fact that it is only for a limited time.
And that limited time is defined by article I as? Oh, yes. It isn't. Ergo, there is no problem, constitutionally, with a 95 year limit, as mentioned above.
Does your home automatically increase in size every time another family moves in?
Does your idea suddenly find a broader market when someone steals it?
Either you believe in personal property rights, or you don't. Decide.
My bad.
However, the constitution itself places no such limit on intellectual property laws.
There is no difference between saying that your idea is only your property for 14 years before anyone can use it, and saying that your home is only your property for 14 years, and then anyone can move in.
No, the constitution doesn't specify exactly how long. But if you look at the copyright and patent laws during that period, and even after, it's pretty clear copyrights/patents weren't meant to stay in the hands of the creators for more than a short period of tiem. After all, the rest of the clause says,
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times...
The courts extending the limits for decades is not in the spirit of what was meant.
No, the constitution doesn't specify exactly how long. But if you look at the copyright and patent laws during that period, and even after, it's pretty clear copyrights/patents weren't meant to stay in the hands of the creators for more than a short period of tiem. After all, the rest of the clause says, To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times...
The courts extending the limits for decades is not in the spirit of what was meant.
That is not a Constitutional guarantee, nor is it something protected by the Constitution. Anything that happens in the courts or Congress can be changed.
And that limited time is defined by article I as? Oh, yes. It isn't. Ergo, there is no problem, constitutionally, with a 95 year limit, as mentioned above.
I didn't say there was. But a time limit is required, and their view of a reasonable one was 14 years. It is not really property; it is an agreement from the government to promote creativity by creating a temporary monopoly for new creations.
Does your idea suddenly find a broader market when someone steals it?
If someone "steals" your idea, you still have it. If it's a good idea, and it spreads around the world, everyone benefits. That's how ideas work.
Patents and copyrights are intended to promote the creation of new ideas, by putting old ideas in the public domain for all to build on, giving added value to the creation of new ones, and discouraging the practice of "sitting on" new ideas to decrease competition.
Either you believe in personal property rights, or you don't. Decide.
I believe in them as described in the Constitution.
That is not a Constitutional guarantee, nor is it something protected by the Constitution. Anything that happens in the courts or Congress can be changed.
The Constitution can be changed. So what. the way certain corporations, which are NOT PEOPLE, have twisted this to their benefit is NOT in the spirit in which that ammendment was written.
How exactly does a corporation do anything? Don't people within the organization actually do those "things" you speak of?
No, the constitution doesn't specify exactly how long. But if you look at the copyright and patent laws during that period, and even after, it's pretty clear copyrights/patents weren't meant to stay in the hands of the creators for more than a short period of tiem. After all, the rest of the clause says, To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times...
The courts extending the limits for decades is not in the spirit of what was meant.
There is no "spirit". There is black letter law, and opinion.
The Constitution can be changed. So what. the way certain corporations, which are NOT PEOPLE, have twisted this to their benefit is NOT in the spirit in which that ammendment was written.
Legally, corporations are people. Or at least they have the same rights, and few of the obligations.
How exactly does a corporation do anything? Don't people within the organization actually do those "things" you speak of?
You know what I mean. However, a corporation has the same rights (or more even) than a person. In other words, corporations have
personhood. They have since the 1880s, and have systematically destroyed the rights of actual people in order to gain more and more power over the years. It's amazing more people don't know about this, and that it's taken an economic crisis for people to get really angry about the corruption in corporate America.
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/feature1a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodLegally, corporations are people. Or at least they have the same rights, and few of the obligations.
Yes, and there is something very, very wrong with that concept.