Senate Seeks to Create Caesar?

[Calabrio]

I read most of the list - the people listed in almost all cases have at least 2 layers of appointed people above them...

So, according to you, almost all cases have 2 layers of appointments above them. Does this mean that you don't think that the 1st and 2nd layers in the other cases should still be subject to approval and background investigations?

I would have to agree Cal that just getting rid of them would probably be better... but, since that won't be happening -

Why?

getting rid of the costly hearings seems to be at least some cost savings.

There are countless ways for the government to start saving money, this hardly seems like a responsible starting point.

Keep in mind, it's not like every one of these appointments gets a full day dedicated to them before the Senate. And it's also not like the Senate is so busy that they need their work loads lightened. Most of the time, these "less important" bureaucrats, a term I think is dismissive and underestimates the actual power held in this institutions, are simply given a background investigation, the information is put in a packet, it's handed to the senate staffer to look for red flags, and they later do a quick up or down votes almost like an assembly line. The idea that this is a huge burden on the system and slowing down the critical work of the Senate is a mistake.

Presidential appointments can be spared the thorough background investigations and minimal scrutiny the Senate is supposed to provide through this advise and consent role.

The person who wrote it looks like they don't really understand the lack of power or even influence these positions hold.

You said yourself that "most of" these appointments were 2 layers down. That means at least "some of" them aren't.

I would hesitate to dismiss the bureaucracy power of someone "3 layers down." Using that logic, the speaker of house is impotent since he's 3rd in line for the Presidency.



To be clear- I'm framing this in a bipartisan way. I think there are many Republicans in D.C. that want to continue to centralize power in such a way, shifting power to an even stronger executive branch. Though I will also acknowledge that such a shift in power is particularly alarming with this administration, both in their desire to circumvent the legislative branch, and the ideology of the people they are inclined to appoint.

 

[foxpaws]

So - the only one I saw that I wasn't sure about was the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs -

After some more investigation - they of course answer the the Secretary for Legislative Affairs - and the Secretary for Legislative Affairs answers to the Deputy Secretary of State who answers to the Secretary of State...

So - certainly down the old pecking order.

Once again - I think they should nix a lot of these positions - but both sides won't - these are their 'pay back' positions - people who worked for them in campaigns, etc - get these positions. Republicans do it too.

Start electing in people who don't use appointed positions as payback and you might get somewhere.

The position of Speaker of the House has power because of his elected position... not because he is just 2 heartbeats away from the presidency. His vote in the Senate is the same as the newest member. In fact, other than being the 'spokesperson' for the senate - the chairs of the more powerful committees really have more 'power' within the senate.

And Cal - your explanation of the approval process sort of works against you in this instance - if it is just rubber stamping by everyone involved - then why do it? If background checks are being 'spared' and the scrutiny is minimal - then is it worth it?

I would rather they spend more time on the top level appointees.

Also - it does take time - the background checks (when done) aren't cheap - the printing costs for everything are 'real'. Time is also money - and why have those senators on the hill for longer than they need to be.

Look at the list - there are plenty of Republicans on it - this is a sensible bill, it isn't stripping congress' rights, these positions as 'appointed' were around long before they had to be approved by the senate (they were called just plain ol' assistants, and never had to be ratified).

 

[shagdrum]

If we are going to go with the whole "cost cutting" justification, how about we re-institute the nondelegation doctrine and abolish so many of these bureaucracies for the unconstitutional law making bodies they are? Goodbye EPA, goodbye FDA, etc, etc.

That would be much more consistent with the principles in the Constitution and save a lot more money then could be "saved" by "streamlining" the appointment process.

 

[compshmoe]

If we are going to go with the whole "cost cutting" justification, how about we re-institute the nondelegation doctrine and abolish so many of these bureaucracies for the unconstitutional law making bodies they are? Goodbye EPA, goodbye FDA, etc, etc.

That would be much more consistent with the principles in the Constitution and save a lot more money then could be "saved" by "streamlining" the appointment process.

I laugh when I hear the governors say we need smaller government, we want government out of our lives, cut the FDA, EPA, FEMA; soon there after they're begging for federal help because of a disaster, or when there's a food scare, they beg for federal help: example Alabama, on one hand no big government, they want govt out of our lives, on the other hand, it is illegal to own or purchase a vibrator, by law you cannot live with someone if you aren't married and everytime the wind picks up, they're calling for federal aid.

Want to save money???I think if you want to cut funding for EPA, FDA, FEMA, CDC and so on, there should be a law that your state could opt out of the safety net, then when the :q:q:q:q hits the fan, you're on your own. I guarantee no governor would sign up for it because they know the people of the state would throw their ass out by force when a disaster strikes

 

[Calabrio]

I laugh when I hear the governors say we need smaller government, we want government out of our lives, cut the FDA, EPA, FEMA; soon there after they're begging for federal help because of a disaster, or when there's a food scare, they beg for federal help: example Alabama, on one hand no big government, they want govt out of our lives, on the other hand, it is illegal to own or purchase a vibrator, by law you cannot live with someone if you aren't married and everytime the wind picks up, they're calling for federal aid.

Want to save money???I think if you want to cut funding for EPA, FDA, FEMA, CDC and so on, there should be a law that your state could opt out of the safety net, then when the :q:q:q:q hits the fan, you're on your own. I guarantee no governor would sign up for it because they know the people of the state would throw their ass out by force when a disaster strikes

Will you be posting any more nonsensical, flow of conscious rages this evening?

So you've linked smaller federal government to an imaginary state where it's illegal to own a vibrator to no federal resources during a state of emergency. In your next post, will the Senate poop on any requests for disaster relief before sending it back to the state? Maybe later you can tell us all what this has to do with Presidential appointments and the Senate role of advise and consent.

My hunch is, you don't know much about any of this, at most you read the last post in the thread and just felt compelled to regurgitate that last post onto the board. I'm sure it seemed much more clever in your head.

 

[compshmoe]

Will you be posting any more nonsensical, flow of conscious rages this evening?

So you've linked smaller federal government to an imaginary state where it's illegal to own a vibrator to no federal resources during a state of emergency. In your next post, will the Senate poop on any requests for disaster relief before sending it back to the state? Maybe later you can tell us all what this has to do with Presidential appointments and the Senate role of advise and consent.

My hunch is, you don't know much about any of this, at most you read the last post in the thread and just felt compelled to regurgitate that last post onto the board. I'm sure it seemed much more clever in your head.

What are you high? or blind? my response has a quote above it right? that answers your question " Maybe later you can tell us all what this has to do with Presidential appointments......"

 

[compshmoe]

Will you be posting any more nonsensical, flow of conscious rages this evening?

So you've linked smaller federal government to an imaginary state where it's illegal to own a vibrator to no federal resources during a state of emergency. In your next post, will the Senate poop on any requests for disaster relief before sending it back to the state? Maybe later you can tell us all what this has to do with Presidential appointments and the Senate role of advise and consent.

My hunch is, you don't know much about any of this, at most you read the last post in the thread and just felt compelled to regurgitate that last post onto the board. I'm sure it seemed much more clever in your head.

Imaginary state??? http://www.yoursdaily.com/different_views/alabama_sex_toy_law_no_vibrators_allowed

It is meant to show that in public on one hand Republicans call for smaller government and want it to stay out of peoples lives, then they do a 180 and pass BS like this and anti abortion laws.
They want to cut drastically on the same safety net they cry for when in need, so F.O !!

 

[Calabrio]

You're still completely off topic, but I doubt you even understand what the topic is.

Imaginary state???

I stand corrected, I presumed it was a local statue. Clearly, you know more about purchasing vibrators than I do.

But that's a state law, not a federal one. If the people of Alabama don't agree, they have the ability to change it. And if you don't like that, you can move to Louisiana where such a law doesn't exist.

Are you familiar with federalism?
Do you understand the system of government laid out in the Constitution?

Clearly not.

It is meant to show that in public on one hand Republicans call for smaller government and want it to stay out of peoples lives, then they do a 180 and pass BS like this and anti abortion laws.

It shows that people in Alabama passed anti-obscenity laws in the late 90s. They can do that. Alabama is different than Florida. Florida is different than New Jersey.

They want to cut drastically on the same safety net they cry for when in need, so F.O !!

Another idiotic exclamation, peppered with obscenity. How thoughtful.

If the states and the residents are forced to contribute to the federal program, they have the reasonable expectation that the emergency service will be provided. Your logic is like saying that a person who protests having to carry auto insurance SHOULD NOT file a claim after they are struck by a hit and run driver.

Now, explain to me how this ties back into the appointment process and the Senate's advise and consent responsibility.

 

[compshmoe]

You're still completely off topic, but I doubt you even understand what the topic is.


I stand corrected, I presumed it was a local statue. Clearly, you know more about purchasing vibrators than I do.

But that's a state law, not a federal one. If the people of Alabama don't agree, they have the ability to change it. And if you don't like that, you can move to Louisiana where such a law doesn't exist.

Are you familiar with federalism?
Do you understand the system of government laid out in the Constitution?

Clearly not.


It shows that people in Alabama passed anti-obscenity laws in the late 90s. They can do that. Alabama is different than Florida. Florida is different than New Jersey.


Another idiotic exclamation, peppered with obscenity. How thoughtful.

If the states and the residents are forced to contribute to the federal program, they have the reasonable expectation that the emergency service will be provided. Your logic is like saying that a person who protests having to carry auto insurance SHOULD NOT file a claim after they are struck by a hit and run driver.

Now, explain to me how this ties back into the appointment process and the Senate's advise and consent responsibility.

OBVIOUSLY, you have to be fed information like turkeys are force fed: with a shovel and then stuff it down your throat with a baseball bat:::: A L L that I stated previously was in reference to quoted statement that was attached with my comment, WHY do you ask me to explain how all this ties back to your subject, WHEN i was replying to someone elses comment ? ARE you S L O W?

"If the states and the residents are forced to contribute to the federal program, they have the reasonable expectation that the emergency service will be provided" MY POINT EXACTLY, we're asked to pay for it, and are asked to take cuts on it so corporations can get it as tax breaks.......because they create jobs, like in the past 10 years, morons, THATS WHY i said if the STATES want smaller GOVT, and want to cut back on the safety net, let them sign a law that says when the :q:q:q:q hits the fan, they wont ask "BIG GOVT" for help, like.....wait for it...... ALABAMA

"Alabama is different than Florida. Florida is different than New Jersey."
NO they're not, all republican controlled and they are all following an ideological plan: anti unions, anti abortions, anti women's rights, anti gay marriage, ANTI everything except anti taking money from corporations.

 

[compshmoe]

""Your logic is like saying that a person who protests having to carry auto insurance SHOULD NOT file a claim after they are struck by a hit and run driver""


Your logic is I have to carry full coverage insurance, but I wont be covered because of budget cuts and the insurance company CEO needs a tax break so he wont create jobs

 

[shagdrum]

Your logic is I have to carry full coverage insurance, but I wont be covered because of budget cuts and the insurance company CEO needs a tax break so he wont create jobs

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

That doesn't even make sense!

Your stupidity is becoming less offensive and more entertaining.

It is fun to watch people hang themselves, especially when they are too dense to realize it.

 

[shagdrum]

S. 679: To Remove “Advise and Consent” Function of Senate for Numerous Federal Appointments
by J.E. Dyer

This, introduced by Chuck Schumer on 30 March 2011, looks like a very, very bad idea, from the perspective of anyone who wants government to be smaller and less intrusive – and wants the executive to be policed better by the legislative branch. President Obama and his czars are the obvious counterargument to this bill. They make a powerful one.

More than 200 appointed positions would be excused from the advise-and-consent requirement by S. 679. Among them are the following:

• The Agriculture Department’s Commodities Credit Board
• Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service Administrator
• The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• The Defense Department’s Assistant Secretary for Networks and Information Integration
• The Assistant Secretaries of each of the armed services for financial management
• The Education Department’s Assistant Secretary for Management
• Education’s Commissioner of Education Statistics
• All 7 of the Assistant Secretaries of Energy
• The Department of Homeland Security’s Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness
• Homeland Security’s Assistant Administrator of FEMA for Grant Programs
• The Department of the Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer
• The Treasurer of the United States
• Director of the US Mint
• The Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (amending Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act)
• Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank (amending Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act)
• Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund (amending Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act)
• Managing Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service
• The Office of Management and Budget’s Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management
• Director of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund

That’s just a sample – and it represents an awful lot of policy, money-handling, and benefit-management, with your tax dollars. The Senate proposes to let the president appoint people to these positions without explicit prior oversight. The sheer possibilities for graft and bribery here are colossal – and that’s before we even get to the possibilities for covert policy implementation.

The Senate may be naïve enough to think presidents “should” simply be trusted to appoint honest brokers to these positions. With the Obama administration’s record of attempting one executive end-run after another around due-process law, such senatorial sentiment seems like willful stupidity. But Obama is not the first president to appoint questionable individuals to second-tier federal positions. There is a long history of problems or perceived problems in this area of executive privilege. And that’s the point of consensual government, checks and balances, and separation of powers.

The list in S. 679 includes all the legislative affairs directors for the federal departments, which would mean that a president’s appointees to these positions would be entirely loyal to him, not Congress. Add that to all the key positions in which money or statistics could be mishandled behind the scenes. (The Chief Scientist for NOAA could well be the most important appointment in the US federal government these days. The Commodity Credit Board and the Community Development Financial Institution Fund would be extremely efficient vote-buying vehicles in the wrong hands. The skullduggery that could result from unreviewed appointments to the IMF and the Asian and African development funds doesn’t bear thinking about.)

Now is not the time to express this kind of confidence in the executive. In fact, the case is the exact opposite. In terms of political administration, S. 679 would be a good head start on turning all of America into Chicago. Here are the Republicans who co-sponsored it with Chuck Schumer:

Alexander (TN)

Brown (MA)

Collins (ME)

Johanns (NE)

Kyl (AZ)

Lugar (IN)

McConnell (KY)

 

[shagdrum]

Listing contractor donations brews bipartisan opposition
‘Risk too high’ for political role in hiring process
By Sean Lengell

-

The Washington Times

A growing number of lawmakers from both parties is pushing back against a White House bid to force prospective federal contractors to disclose their political donations, arguing that it could stifle free speech.

Saying it smacked of "Chicago hardball politics," Rep. Darrell Issa led a Capitol Hill grilling of White House procurement official Daniel I. Gordon on Thursday about the president's proposed executive order. Many provisions of the so-called Disclose Act, which failed in 2010, would become law by fiat.

"The risk that politics could play a roll in the outcome of contracting and award decisions [if the plan were enacted] is too high," said Mr. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. Gordon, administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, declined to comment specifically on the proposed executive order because it is only in draft form. But he said the administration is "100 percent committed to a merit-based contracting process that meets the highest standards of integrity and transparency."

Political contributions by law aren't taken into consideration when the federal government awards contracts, and Mr. Gordon said that would remain the case.

"There simply is no place for politics in federal acquisition," he said.

Rep. Sam Graves, chairman of the Small Business Committee, questioned the logic of requesting information on political donations during the bidding process if it wasn't going to be used.

"Why the administration would want that information ahead of time disturbs me in a big way," the Missouri Republican said.

But Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the oversight committee, said he disagreed that disclosing political donations would harm the bidding process, saying the public has a right to know "what's going on with these contributions."

"I've been a member of this committee for 15 years, and I never thought I'd see the day when our committee would view transparency as the enemy," he said.

The proposed executive order follows a failed attempt last year by Democrats to push through the Disclose Act, which would have imposed strict disclosure requirements on campaign donations.

The failed legislation was a direct response to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down most limits on corporate and union spending in elections on the grounds that they violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

Also Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators sent the president a letter expressing concern that the proposed executive order "creates the appearance that this type of information could become a factor in the award of federal contracts."

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, who served as Office of Management and Budget director during a portion of the George W. Bush administration, also was signed by Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, on Tuesday came out against the Obama proposal, saying that he was "not in agreement with the administration on this."

 

[foxpaws]

Don't like this particular form of transparency shag?

Why not?

 

[shagdrum]

Both S .679 and the EO are nothing more then an attempt to streamline political intimidation and politically stacking the deck. The "transparency" argument is, ironically enough, simply a means to cover their true intentions.

 

[compshmoe]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

That doesn't even make sense!

Your stupidity is becoming less offensive and more entertaining.

It is fun to watch people hang themselves, especially when they are too dense to realize it.

I'll break it down for your feeble mind : I said .....Your logic is I have to carry full coverage insurance ( In other words pay taxes, Social security and so on), but I wont be covered because of budget cuts ( due to budget cuts my safety net will be cut EX: medicare, medicaid, fema and so on ) and the insurance company CEO ( corporations and wealthy) needs a tax break ( proposed tax incentives which are being cut from the safety net and instead of putting that money back in the budget bringing down the defecit, they are given to corporations as tax incentives) so he wont create jobs (The lie that tax breaks for the corporations create jobs)
See, not hard to understand what i was trying to say, and it didn't take me half a page of bull:q:q:q:q to say it.

 

[Calabrio]

Your logic is ...

You appear to have missed the point.
Your criticism was that Southern states were asking for federal emergency relief, you attributed this action as a sign of hypocrisy. The insurance analogy equates being forced to pay insurance to be forced to support federal programs. Such policies remove revenue from the state, just like forcing a person to purchase insurance makes it more difficult to self-insure, and they change the social and cultural expectations.

Despite opposing being forced to contribute to such a program, it isn't hypocritical for the state to expect the safety net that was promised them in return for their coerced involvement.

Now your interpretation of that metaphor is entirely different, but we can expand on it, though it's really off topic.

I have to carry full coverage insurance ( In other words pay taxes, Social security and so on), but I wont be covered because of budget cuts ( due to budget cuts my safety net will be cut EX: medicare, medicaid, fema and so on ) and the insurance company CEO ( corporations and wealthy) needs a tax break ( proposed tax incentives which are being cut from the safety net and instead of putting that money back in the budget bringing down the defecit, they are given to corporations as tax incentives) so he wont create jobs (The lie that tax breaks for the corporations create jobs)

First of all, it's not the job of the federal government to be your insurance company. They aren't designed to do it, they can't do it efficiency, and it's a role that is wildly outside of the "company's" charter.

This company of yours set-up a variety of ponzi schemes, the motivation for doing so is irrelevant in this discussion. "Insurance" plans were set-up that were not sustainable, just as a ponzi scheme isn't. They require exponentially greater people entering the system in order to finance benefits of the people who entered earlier. Eventually, you can't bring in enough new people and that pyramid becomes inverted.

And at this point, this "company" is spending 49% of the entire budget just on those entitled programs and the interest on the "company's" debt, and they are still growing.

............

So let's just cut to the chase, Comp.
Are you some kind of Marxist or just brainwashed by their class warfare rhetoric?

See, not hard to understand what i was trying to say, and it didn't take me half a page of bull:q:q:q:q to say it.

No, thankfully, you're bull:q:q:q:q is usually shortform.

 

[compshmoe]

"Your criticism was that Southern states were asking for federal emergency relief, you attributed this action as a sign of hypocrisy. The insurance analogy equates being forced to pay insurance to be forced to support federal programs."

The "insurance" is the safety net, the federal programs they are being "forced to pay into" is the safety net, the programs they're cutting are the safety net, how can you on one hand want to slash funding on the safety net, take that money saved and slide it over to the tax break side, then turn around and say you need the net to help you in time of need?


"Despite opposing being forced to contribute to such a program, it isn't hypocritical for the state to expect the safety net that was promised them in return for their coerced involvement"

So the states are angry because they have to contribute so they want to cut funding from it, but they find they need it and stretch out their hand? thats like bitching about the food at a soup kitchen isn't it? Like paying for a hot dog but then demand you get steak.


" "Insurance" plans were set-up that were not sustainable, just as a ponzi scheme isn't. They require exponentially greater people entering the system in order to finance benefits of the people who entered earlier. Eventually, you can't bring in enough new people and that pyramid becomes inverted"

Very true, but when you don't have enough people, you don't tell the rest to pay less or not pay at all ( tax breaks)


"And at this point, this "company" is spending 49% of the entire budget just on those entitled programs and the interest on the "company's" debt, and they are still growing."

Face it, even in African jungles the elderly of the tribes are being taken care of by the younger, so 3rd world countries have better morals than we?? We instead are telling the elderly, here's $1,600 voucher go get your own insurance, we're gonna freeze your Social security payments and not give a cost of living increase, and by the way we're gonna extend the retirement age so you can work till you're 70, OH and the way we're gonna pay for whats left is borrowing money from China and let your children and your children's children pay it off because the Koch brothers need tax breaks.


"So let's just cut to the chase, Comp.
Are you some kind of Marxist or just brainwashed by their class warfare rhetoric?"

What do you call taking essential programs from the needy and the poor and instead giving all the breaks to the well off ? http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html Do you think the way to help the economy is to kick more people out on the street, let them get sicker, letting them make a choice of it's either: food or medicine or heat or Air conditioner, or clothes for the kids? is that Christian? Is that moral? As a person whose mother and father barely make ends meet with their Social security, a mother in law that can't afford her medication ; these people worked for over 50 years and the safety net they were promised is on the chopping block while the wealthy and corporations get the breaks, that seems right to you???

 

[Calabrio]

The "insurance" is the safety net, the federal programs they are being "forced to pay into" is the safety net, the programs they're cutting are the safety net, how can you on one hand want to slash funding on the safety net, take that money saved and slide it over to the tax break side, then turn around and say you need the net to help you in time of need?

What you're saying doesn't make sense and you just keep distorting a rather simple and general analogy to the point it makes no sense.

If I reluctantly am forced to pay into a program that promises a safety net, I have the reasonable expectation that, in the event of a natural disaster, assistance will be provided. And because I'm coerced to pay into this program, I'm LESS able to provide for myself because the involuntary involvement in the program reduces the amount of resources available to me, or the state.

Even if I want the program cut, so long as I'm funding it and am forced to abide by the limitations that result from it, it's not hypocritical to expect to be offered some protection from it.

I don't know specifically what program(s) your talking about, the application, or who's actively arguing to have their budgets cut. As far as I know, there's no national interest in having emergency relief because of a disaster defunded.
........................................

You next point has to deal with taking "savings" and then "giving' them to corporations in the form of tax cuts.

First, if I don't take something from you, am I actually giving it to you?
If I don't steal your wallet, did I just give you the money that was in it? If so, you should thank everyone who doesn't rob you walking down the street.

But, more importantly, the country is bankrupt.
That's not hyperbole, it's true. Our government isn't just running out of money, it's nearly $15 TRILLION in on-book debt.

So far, this fiscal year, we're already $1.4 TRILLION in the red.

When you calculate the on-book unfunded liabilities that debt is actually about $114 TRILLION

And, as I mentioned early, about half of our budget is spent on entitlements and interest on the debt.

You seem to think that any savings will simply be "given" back to a corporation or rich person. As I pointed out, there's a flaw to this logic, because they aren't seizing anything from the poor and giving it to a business or "rich" person. According to your premise, they simply wouldn't take it from the "rich" person in order to redistribute it. But let's not let reason get in the way of your point.

You can't tax your way out of this financial crisis. It's cliche and oft repeatedly, but the problem in Washington isn't a lack of revenue, it's spending. They need to spend less.

First, what ever they spend needs to be done in the most efficient way possible.
And second, the federal government needs to shrink back to the size and roll established in the constitution. These "safety nets" that you appear to endorse should be the responsibility of the states. Some states may be very redistributive, others not. You can institute change locally, or move somewhere that appeals to your sensibilities.

"Very true, but when you don't have enough people, you don't tell the rest to pay less or not pay at all ( tax breaks)

So how much should someone pay in taxes?
10% 25% 45%
Why not just take 80% or 95% of their income?
Why not just take EVERYTHING a family earns over $75k?

Face it, even in African jungles the elderly of the tribes are being taken care of by the younger, so 3rd world countries have better morals than we??

That's an interesting point your making.
Traditionally, families felt a moral obligation to take care of their elderly. What's changed?

We've passed the responsibility off to the federal government to take care of it for us. For the past century, I didn't need to worry about my parents as they grew old. I paid a little bit into this ponzi scheme and I could leave their care and well being to the government.

And parents had no reason to maintain or build strong relationships with their adult children because, as they grew old, they could turn to their government to care for them?

Is that more moral? Is it more moral to deflect that personal responsibility to the political powers in Washington?

We instead are telling the elderly, here's $1,600 voucher go get your own insurance, we're gonna freeze your Social security payments and not give a cost of living increase, and by the way we're gonna extend the retirement age so you can work till you're 70, OH and the way we're gonna pay for whats left is borrowing money from China and let your children and your children's children pay it off because the Koch brothers need tax breaks.

And again, you back to point about taxes.
You seem to think that if we just seized more assets from people, if we just redistributed more wealth, we'd be a stronger country for it.
This is economically illiterate thinking.

What do you call taking essential programs from the needy and the poor and instead giving all the breaks to the well off ?

You didn't answer the question. Are you a marxist or a "useful idiot?"

Do you think the way to help the economy is to kick more people out on the street

There are many ways to help the economy, but expanding the size of the federal government is not one of them. In fact, it impedes the economic correction.

let them get sicker, letting them make a choice of it's either: food or medicine or heat or Air conditioner, or clothes for the kids?

Is your argument that the federal government should be responsible for those things? If so, where does it get that responsibility in the constitution?

That the assets of one person should be ceased against their will at increasingly exorbitant rates and redistributed to another? If so, where do the limits of private property exist?

And do you even think the federal government can, or does, these things efficiently? Are you defending the programs in place because they are the best way to do it or just because you don't want to consider anything else?

is that Christian? Is that moral?

It's Christian for you to go volunteer. It's Christian for you to go donate your time, money, and energy. Christian teaching has to do with the individual being charitable, not the individual being forced by the government to surrender their assets, and to then have them inefficiently and corruptly redistributed.

And do you really care. Speaking of hypocrites, you use the arguments of "morality" and "Christianity" in this thread, but in the same breath you speak critically about any kind of regulation on the act of abortion.

As a person whose mother and father barely make ends meet with their Social security, a mother in law that can't afford her medication ; these people worked for over 50 years and the safety net they were promised is on the chopping block while the wealthy and corporations get the breaks, that seems right to you???

We can discuss tax policy in another post, I've already touched on it in this thread.

So, just to be clear, you are saying it's MY responsibility to take care of YOUR parents? Do I have that right?
They raised you, they fed, they clothed, sheltered you and wiped your ass. But it's up to someone else to take care of them?
Are the tribes in the jungle more moral than you?

But none of those programs are "on the chopping block" when it comes to your parents. So long as it's possible, so long as we reform the systems soon, it's pretty universally agreed that those in the system and those without sufficient time to prepare accordingly, will be able to stay in the programs they anticipated. An 80 year old doesn't have time to restructure or accommodate for any radical change in the system, however someone who is 45 still does.

And if we don't reform or reinvent these 'safety nets' now, there will be nothing available. If the system collapses because we don't make changes now, there will be NOTHING for anyone. Not only will there be nothing available when you get old, there will be nothing for your parents.

 

[compshmoe]

What you're saying doesn't make sense and you just keep distorting a rather simple and general analogy to the point it makes no sense.

If I reluctantly am forced to pay into a program that promises a safety net, I have the reasonable expectation that, in the event of a natural disaster, assistance will be provided. And because I'm coerced to pay into this program, I'm LESS able to provide for myself because the involuntary involvement in the program reduces the amount of resources available to me, or the state.

Even if I want the program cut, so long as I'm funding it and am forced to abide by the limitations that result from it, it's not hypocritical to expect to be offered some protection from it.

I don't know specifically what program(s) your talking about, the application, or who's actively arguing to have their budgets cut. As far as I know, there's no national interest in having emergency relief because of a disaster defunded.
........................................

You next point has to deal with taking "savings" and then "giving' them to corporations in the form of tax cuts.

First, if I don't take something from you, am I actually giving it to you?
If I don't steal your wallet, did I just give you the money that was in it? If so, you should thank everyone who doesn't rob you walking down the street.

But, more importantly, the country is bankrupt.
That's not hyperbole, it's true. Our government isn't just running out of money, it's nearly $15 TRILLION in on-book debt.

So far, this fiscal year, we're already $1.4 TRILLION in the red.

When you calculate the on-book unfunded liabilities that debt is actually about $114 TRILLION

And, as I mentioned early, about half of our budget is spent on entitlements and interest on the debt.

You seem to think that any savings will simply be "given" back to a corporation or rich person. As I pointed out, there's a flaw to this logic, because they aren't seizing anything from the poor and giving it to a business or "rich" person. According to your premise, they simply wouldn't take it from the "rich" person in order to redistribute it. But let's not let reason get in the way of your point.

You can't tax your way out of this financial crisis. It's cliche and oft repeatedly, but the problem in Washington isn't a lack of revenue, it's spending. They need to spend less.

First, what ever they spend needs to be done in the most efficient way possible.
And second, the federal government needs to shrink back to the size and roll established in the constitution. These "safety nets" that you appear to endorse should be the responsibility of the states. Some states may be very redistributive, others not. You can institute change locally, or move somewhere that appeals to your sensibilities.


So how much should someone pay in taxes?
10% 25% 45%
Why not just take 80% or 95% of their income?
Why not just take EVERYTHING a family earns over $75k?


That's an interesting point your making.
Traditionally, families felt a moral obligation to take care of their elderly. What's changed?

We've passed the responsibility off to the federal government to take care of it for us. For the past century, I didn't need to worry about my parents as they grew old. I paid a little bit into this ponzi scheme and I could leave their care and well being to the government.

And parents had no reason to maintain or build strong relationships with their adult children because, as they grew old, they could turn to their government to care for them?

Is that more moral? Is it more moral to deflect that personal responsibility to the political powers in Washington?


And again, you back to point about taxes.
You seem to think that if we just seized more assets from people, if we just redistributed more wealth, we'd be a stronger country for it.
This is economically illiterate thinking.


You didn't answer the question. Are you a marxist or a "useful idiot?"


There are many ways to help the economy, but expanding the size of the federal government is not one of them. In fact, it impedes the economic correction.


Is your argument that the federal government should be responsible for those things? If so, where does it get that responsibility in the constitution?

That the assets of one person should be ceased against their will at increasingly exorbitant rates and redistributed to another? If so, where do the limits of private property exist?

And do you even think the federal government can, or does, these things efficiently? Are you defending the programs in place because they are the best way to do it or just because you don't want to consider anything else?


It's Christian for you to go volunteer. It's Christian for you to go donate your time, money, and energy. Christian teaching has to do with the individual being charitable, not the individual being forced by the government to surrender their assets, and to then have them inefficiently and corruptly redistributed.

And do you really care. Speaking of hypocrites, you use the arguments of "morality" and "Christianity" in this thread, but in the same breath you speak critically about any kind of regulation on the act of abortion.


We can discuss tax policy in another post, I've already touched on it in this thread.

So, just to be clear, you are saying it's MY responsibility to take care of YOUR parents? Do I have that right?
They raised you, they fed, they clothed, sheltered you and wiped your ass. But it's up to someone else to take care of them?
Are the tribes in the jungle more moral than you?

But none of those programs are "on the chopping block" when it comes to your parents. So long as it's possible, so long as we reform the systems soon, it's pretty universally agreed that those in the system and those without sufficient time to prepare accordingly, will be able to stay in the programs they anticipated. An 80 year old doesn't have time to restructure or accommodate for any radical change in the system, however someone who is 45 still does.

And if we don't reform or reinvent these 'safety nets' now, there will be nothing available. If the system collapses because we don't make changes now, there will be NOTHING for anyone. Not only will there be nothing available when you get old, there will be nothing for your parents.

1st :EVERYTHING you speak of about how the economy is F'd up and they're not taking from the poor and giving to the rich in forms of tax incentives is proven wrong by the graph ITS right there in color !!!!!http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html

2nd : Funny how republicans became so fiscally responsible all of a sudden, what someone wrote states it best::::::


"Lets be clear about the real republican record..

It was Republicans who supported the Bush tax cuts, and added the costs to the national debt. Republicans then chose to finance the war in Afghanistan by adding the costs to the national debt. They then put the costs of the war in Iraq onto the national debt. The GOP supported a massive expansion of the government's role in health care, Medicare Part D, and piled all of its costs right onto the national debt, and then backed the financial industry bailout, and added the bill to the national debt.

In December, Republicans refused to allow for a middle-class tax cut unless it included more expensive breaks for the wealthiest people in America. The entire package, backed by the GOP, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and by Republican design, all of the costs were added to the national debt.

Indeed, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch, reflecting on the last decade when his party added trillions to the debt entirely on their own, recently said it was an era in which "it was standard practice not to pay for things." It was, of course, the Republican Party that came up with this "standard practice."

All the while, GOP policymakers had no qualms about voting to raise the debt limit.

If Republicans want to pretend to care about fiscal responsibility, that's up to them. But there's no reason to shamelessly lie, while claiming to be "honest," about which party's responsible for "screwing" the USA! "

Cheney said that deficits don't matter (only when your party's in power)

 

[cammerfe]

Easy Answers

Cal, let me answer the question that Comp seems determined to dodge. The way he pukes out the tired polemics of the Liberal, Marxist, Progressive end of the spectrum suggests to this observer that there's no original thinking involved. Therefore, the answer he avoids is that he's a 'Useful Idiot'. Not doing very well, himself, he's frantic to have someone else look out for his family oldsters. It's a bad situation and I understand the frantic undertone. Under such circumstances, a nanny government must look very inviting for those with only a mediocre grasp of the realities.

KS

 

[compshmoe]

Cal, let me answer the question that Comp seems determined to dodge. The way he pukes out the tired polemics of the Liberal, Marxist, Progressive end of the spectrum suggests to this observer that there's no original thinking involved. Therefore, the answer he avoids is that he's a 'Useful Idiot'. Not doing very well, himself, he's frantic to have someone else look out for his family oldsters. It's a bad situation and I understand the frantic undertone. Under such circumstances, a nanny government must look very inviting for those with only a mediocre grasp of the realities.

KS

I'll be damned. a Republican in the most screwed up state in the country, how's that republican controlled michigan treatin' ya?

 

[shagdrum]

See, not hard to understand what i was trying to say,

Actually, what you wrote is impossible to understand through rational thought and an understanding of basic economics. It only makes any "sense" with an utter lack of those qualities. To the rational mind is it absurd gibberish trying desperately to sound intelligent.

Don't flatter your self with this "half a page" crap, it only takes three sentences to highlight your petulant stupidity...unless three sentences is half a page to you...:shifty:

 

[compshmoe]

Actually, what you wrote is impossible to understand through rational thought and an understanding of basic economics. It only makes any "sense" with an utter lack of those qualities. To the rational mind is it absurd gibberish trying desperately to sound intelligent.

Don't flatter your self with this "half a page" crap, it only takes three sentences to highlight your petulant stupidity...unless three sentences is half a page to you...:shifty:

Petulant stupidity is for the ones that stand with the same people that got us in this mess in the first place.
Outright retarded is standing up for people who wipe their asses with you everyday cause theres no way in hell you and 3/4 of the country will ever be in their club.
And just plain gay is voting against your own interest and being led to believe otherwise

Republican petulant stupid retarded and just plain closet gay; smile

 

[shagdrum]

And just plain gay is voting against your own interest and being led to believe otherwise

So, by your own standard, I take you are a homosexual?