The Republics think the wealthiest are the backbone of this country.

Can you say trickle down???

Hil,tell em what I tell em,
Conservative My Ass!!!!!!!

A spokesman for the Republican Party had another name for the Clinton campaign bus today: "Clinton's Tax-and-Spend Express.''

Can the Republicans really continue to beat these drums over and over again when we've watched them spend up a record deficit, expand government at a historic rate, rubber stamp anything put in front of them, and unaccountably lose truck loads of our dollars in Iraq? Who are they trying to fool?

Republicans can make fun of Demcocrats by screaming "tax and spend" all they want, but tax and spend led to the greatest period of economic prosperity in our history. And the American people know that, they know Democratic tax plans lead to prosperity and Republican tax plans lead to debt. Nothing Republicans say can change that fact.

I thought President Bush has destroyed the middle class? How can they still have a bus left?

Screw the country, I want more Tax Cuts for the rich!

Hey, they GOP believes in "no tax and spend in war time", let's get it right.

Let's see more emphasis on tax breaks that create a better America for the squeezed middle class by spurring:

An easier road to a college education.

Responsible home ownership.

Access to affordable healthcare.

Who's for America -- and Americans?

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Same old Republican sound bytes. Can't they come up with anything original? They keep yakking on and on about the Democrats being the 'tax and spend' party, but it just isn't true. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. Just consider how Reagan tripled our national debt and how Dumb'ya is squandering our wealth over a stupid, unjustified so-called 'war on terror'. I won't even mention the pallets of cash, yes, you read that correctly, PALLETS OF CASH, that he shipped into the war zone of Iraq, that mysteriously 'disappeared'. Well, duh!

Democrats tax and spend. Republicans don't tax but spend on such nonproductive measures as war and let future generations foot the bill.

Ummmmm, people are buying this load of crap?
Her idea of expanding the middle class is to tax those of us already working 80 work weeks into oblivion and forcing us to work 90+ to maintain our current status quo while she hands out my hard earned money to those who refuse to work 20 hours a week.

Keep beggin America, you will get exactly what you have been begging for. A socialist/communist country. Does not bode well for the individual. does not bode well fro freedom. But, I see all too many are way too willing to give up freedom for a government daddy to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how much they can do it. And if you exceed in what you do... they will tax it until you see no point in doing better than average. That... is exactly the democratic promise. Do not do better than average or we will take it from you and hand out to those that fall way short of even trying to attain average.

Hillary is a touted to be the smartest woman in politics, but she cannot seem to get out of the way of her own comments that are piling up like a lot of dirty diapers. The sad thing is, too many are not hearing what she is saying and not thinking about the wider problems that come with her socialist agenda.

5,000.00 bond for every baby born? What you did not hear is only if you make less than "x" and only if you are this or that.

You did not hear where the money would come from.

You did not hear the 200 years of history we have with what happens when an entitlement program is enacted. Quoted costs are usually three times what they will cost in less than FIVE years and quadruple after ten. Usually, nine times what they say it will cost. May as well borrow money from the mob, it is a cheaper interest rate and much more healthy for you.

I want to know why so many people are willing to overlook or just not hear what this woman is saying? I want to know why so many people are willing to trade their freedoms for her socialism? have you all gone soft in the belly? Are you so willing to have a Master? That IS what you are asking for. A Master to govern your lives. Insane. BTW.... The republicans have nothing either. They are about as corrupt and deceitful as the democrats.

Time to fire them all. Time for the American people to step up to the plate and let their elected officials know they have had enough. It is too bad that will not happen anytime soon. Too many people have their heads in the sand. Ignore it.. it will go away, right? Wrong.

Keep in mind how our country formed. The people that made the money got sick and tired of being taxed into oblivion.

Keep this in mind. Don't p.o. those that pay 80% of ALL taxes in this country, which would be the TOP 20% wage earners. NOT the middle class.

Keep this in mind. They could cripple the country in less than a week. All they have to do is shut down all the businesses for a week. Think about that when you vote to raise taxes on those that bust their rear ends to support yet another person who thinks I or someone else owes them something just because they are alive and just because I have it. eventually, you are going t o find that a lot of people who DO make the money and pay the taxes for these government hand out programs are done with it and let you all wallow in your own delusions of who owes who what.

The Plutocratic Corporatocracy and the war on the middle class:

http://www.bestcyrano.org/cyrano/?p=149

And an op-ed from Paul Krugman that seeks to dispel the myth that Bush has strayed from his Republican roots:

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after “consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” - presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.

Paul Krugman, New York Times

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?hp

I heard the same kind of talk when Lyndon B Johnson was running for President in 1968. Promise the electorate the moon. We are seeing the same old politics from Hilary. This is not new ideas, but how do I redistribute money from one social class or group to another.

This country needs a leader with a vision and understanding of what "cooperative development" means. Cooperative development is where people recognize the need for working together to meet the challenges of our society. You pay taxes, but how and who does that help? Why is it important and valuable to you or anyone else to do it? People need to understand and see how working together is in everyones best interests, not just those who seem to benefit. Otherwise, you maintain divisions and animosity between social groups. Clinton politics, I am afraid, remains based on the premise of promising the most to the largest group of people if you want to get elected. Hilary is not the politician who can bring this country together because her promises are based on that old political paradigm of "whomever promises the most to the largest group of voters, wins." It encourages the electorate to make their decisions based on, "What do I get", instead of how does this benefit the country as a whole.

Think about what Hilary has promised. She wants to give $5000 to every baby born. She wants to provide parental education for all new parents. She wants to help strengthen the Middle Class. She wants to give things to voters. That is not how to change the basic dynamic of this country. It does not unite people, it divides them. Hilary remains concerned (as did Bush) about having the biggest voting block. A real leader is more concern with having support from a united electorate. I fear if Hilary is the Democratic nominee, all we will have accomplished is replace the Republican view with the Democratic one. What we really need instead is to replace special interests with American interests. If Hilary Clinton is elected you are going to see 8 years of the Democrats version of Bush. That is not progress, but merely a change of the guard.

Paul Krugman always has a few valid points in his column but he is such a n extreme Bush hater that he can not go beyond blind, unrelenting hatred. He still parrots the Communist socialist line that was the disgrace of the USSR. He works for one of the richest newspapers in the world and can't see the irony in that they let him publish this propaganda. If the N Y Times had to live off advertising paid for by the left wing workers business firms, they soon would be broke. Life is good for a leftie in New York...all the rich love to be whipped.

Maybe you socialists can understand the effects of tax cuts in a story:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/barstool-tax-policy.html

Oh no, Terry, all the rich people are going to run away if we tax them? Where are they going to go?

If we bow down real low and promise to be good, loyal serfs from now on will they promise to stay?

You really do beileve the feudal system was the ideal economy, don't you?

Well Terry, I enjoyed the beer story, but I think it ignores the basic reason why wealthy people pay more in taxes than the poor -- they benefit more from our society!

I know rich people think they deserve to have more and no one is denying them that right. What our society says is only that it takes a certain amount of dollars to run this country and people have to pay for that operation based on the relative rewards they realize from our social structure.

Crime, poverty, social problems all increase when nothing is done to prevent them. Prevention requires social investment and where do you think that money has to come from, those who have money or those without it? It is in everyones best interest to build a social structure that has a good quality of life. It is in no ones interest to simply ignore the needs of society because they simply want more for themselves. That ultimately is short sighted. It works great for awhile, but leads to major problems down the road.

I didn't know Sandy Burglar was middle class. Must be if he's riding Hillary's bus.
Now that a convicted felon has such a
prestigious position in the Clinton campaign (not exactly unprecedented), can Hildy forego any pretense about honesty and integrity?

Paul Krugman always has a few valid points in his column but he is such a n extreme Bush hater that he can not go beyond blind, unrelenting hatred. He still parrots the Communist socialist line that was the disgrace of the USSR. He works for one of the richest newspapers in the world and can't see the irony in that they let him publish this propaganda. If the N Y Times had to live off advertising paid for by the left wing workers business firms, they soon would be broke. Life is good for a leftie in New York...all the rich love to be whipped.

Posted by: roneida | October 8, 2007 5:27 PM

No, you're right, we should just continue on with the Repiglican led dictatorship of King W. and his merry band of fascists since they've been doing such a fine job.

I think we should all just raise our hands and volunteer to give up even more of our constitutional rights, who needs them anyway?

Those darn Democrats, they don't know anything.

dt:

You are normally a smart person. That's why you should have known that Paul Krugman of the New York Times is full of s***. George Bush is not a conservative.

Conservative views of government stress fiscal restraint and responsibility, small government, and an ideologically neutral foreign policy. This is because conservatives believe that private parties have a better result governing themselves rather than allowing an eternally expensive government try to control everything. You should known this by now because other posters here, including myself, have explained this stuff over and over.

By, in any event, by these criteria, George Bush is no conservative. He has failed to rein in a Congress on a spending binge, allowed the debt to grow at an astronomical rate, has grown the institutions of government through his own efforts, often resulting in overlapping and conflicting governmental agencies, and has engaged in ideological surgery in foreign countries - and that is putting it lightly. Every conservative president from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower would have found his behavior damnable. [Read Washington’s farewell address to Congress for further points of departure.]

Remember, being a Republican is no proxy for being a conservative.

It is the same thing with Democrats. Being a Democrat is no proxy for being a liberal. In fact, the Democrats have very few liberals among their ranks, as Hillary Clinton herself pointed out. That is why she considers herself to be a “progressive.” As an earlier article in the Swamp pointed out, Hillary correctly noted that “liberal”

“ . . . is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.”

Of course, because she can’t be for “freedom,” much less the “freedom to achieve,” and because she wants to create big power to overwhelm the individual, she admitted that she can’t call herself a liberal. That’s why she prefers the term “progressive.” Progressives like her aren’t, and to have to be, in favor of individual freedom, individual initiative, or small government. (See “Will Clinton one day run from 'progressive' too? by Frank James, http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/will_clinton_one_day_run_from.html )

Instead, “progressives are free to practice “plunder” politics, where the government promises to bleed anyone with money – including the middle-class – just so they can shamelessly by off greedy voters in order to get elected. And don’t tell me that isn’t what she’s doing. Pre-k care, universal health care, and 5k bonds for every newborn, are just three of many examples where she has come up with gimmes to buy votes. She is shameless.

And stupid too. Anyone who wants to increase federal spending in the face of the massive debt, growing inflation, ballooning Social Security and Medicare obligations, and a looming recession is just asking to see the entire system go spiraling out of control. And undoing Duh’bya’s tax cuts isn’t going to be enough to fund both our existing financial obligations and pay for all of her new gimmes either. Thus, she is either bent on ruining the country, or she is lying to everyone because she knows she can’t deliver on half her promises. That makes her either too stupid to govern, or too evil to govern, or both.

All of this is true even before we start talking about the apparent trouble with a number of her ideas when judged by the Constitution. It is not surprising to me, at least, that she flunked the D.C. bar exam.

I think its just wonderful that this country always manages to run the dregs of the politicos for highest office. Again, we will have an election to find the lest odious.

Those darn Democrats, they don't know anything.

Posted by: John E | October 8, 2007 7:15 PM

You finally said something correct. They don't. The Democrats have been willing to take away people's constitutional rights for a long time in the name of "helping" people. Look a little more closely at what is going on and you will see I am right about this.

Errata

In my last post I made a number of errors that make for difficult reading. These are:

1. The third full paragraph should begin: “But, in any event, by these criteria, . . .”

2. The third sentence of the sixth full paragraph should read: “Progressives like her aren’t, and don’t have to be, in favor of individual freedom, individual initiative, or small government.”

3. The first sentence of the seventh full paragraph should read in part: “. . . just so they can shamelessly buy off greedy voters . . .”

I apologize. I get so worked up about Hillary’s b.s. that I don’t bother to proof-read well.

Yes John W., we all have the constitutional right to watch our children suffer from illnesses because we can't afford health insurance or a doctor vist.

Anon,

Nice straw man in the fuedal system.

The rich have options that the avg do not, such as shipping money overseas, and then the US gov't gets nothing. Bermuda is nice this time of year.

PJW,

Your points are valid, but up to what point are you going to keep taxing the rich. I believe the poor benefit from many gov't programs: education, social services, police in the poorer neighborhoods, etc...

37% of the income taxes are paid by the top 1%. How much higher should we go?

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Give 'em Hell, Hillary. IT'S TIME AGAIN, FOR BUBBLE UP PROSPERITY." Interest Rates gave Bill Clinton the legacy he owns today, and so will they make your Presidency a similar benchmark of American prosperity and peace. Go get 'em, girl!

Posted by: John W. | October 8, 2007 8:16 PM

John W,

Usually I can somewhat agree with you but not this time.

Is Habeas Corpus bad for us? your party seems to think so.

This version of the Repiglican Party has made the shortsited mistake of thinking that they will be in power forever.

I'll laugh if they end up having to pass off all of that criminally gained power to President Hillary....

Yes John W., we all have the constitutional right to watch our children suffer from illnesses because we can't afford health insurance or a doctor vist.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 8, 2007 9:32 PM

Oh, cry me a river! On second thought, don't. I don't buy the sob story, okay?

If you need money, get a job. If that doesn’t do it, get two jobs. If that still doesn’t do it, then ask your State legislature to do something.

State legislatures have something that Congress doesn’t have: general legislative power to enact any kind of law to promote the health and welfare of its citizens. That means there is no constitutional objection to the creation and regulation of a State health care system. Barak Obama served in the Illinois State Legislature. I’m sure there are plenty more there just like him, and that they are more than willing to do something.

For all of you who are crowing over health care programs, I must still ask: Why do they have to be handled at the federal level? None of you have ever adequately answered the question why State run programs won't do. This is especially important in light of the facts that: 1) the federal government doesn’t have the kind of general legislative power to enact a health care system, and 2) the federal government is a walking cluster-f*** when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Most States deliver local services more efficiently and less expensively than the federal government ever did. They are also more immediately answerable to voters.

Neither a petulant and impulsive need for gratification, nor being swept up in the B.S. rhetoric of the Queen Bee, are reasons to send the federal government and our economy over the brink.

You know, sometimes I think some people here really hate this country.

John W,
I'm not a big Clinton fan, but I am a big Krugman fan. I presume you read the whole Krugman article. What exactly do you refute about his conclusions? Why is he "full of sh@t"?

More Krugman:

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that “under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.”

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as “humiliating to the South.”

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration’s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh’s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon’s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

JW..I know you and others have explained "over and over" what true conservatism is supposed to represent, but it's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk.

(My apologies for the large posting)

John W. - In case you hadn't noticed, my friend, the S-Chip programs ARE state programs. They ARE run by the states. But there is federal funding for one very important reason: disparities in state wealth.

Not all states are created equal John. Some States have a much higher percentage of the impoverished than others, while having. They have greater demand and lesser ability to fund that demand. Federal funding helps to even out that out so that all citizens iof the US have more similar opportunities.

As to your constuitutional arguement, well it's just palin wrong. The Supreme Court decided that the Feedral government did, in fact, have the right to institute such programs in Halvering Vs. Davis in 1937. That's the law of the land John, no matter how you personally feel about it.

Oh, and John why do YOU hate this country? You bhave nothing but contempt for the federal government. Are you a succesionst John W? Should all the states go their separate ways since they are soo much more efficient?

John E:

I personally believe that habeas corpus is an essential element to American justice and freedom. Apparently, however, there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans in Congress who don't think so. If you recall, the AEDPA (Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) was passed as a bi-partisan measure and signed by President Clinton into law. That measure substantially curtailed the rights of prisoners to obtain federal relief to remedy their wrongful convictions. That's bad. And, before the world stops turning, you can just bet that piece of bi-partisan legislation will spill a lot of innocent blood on the hands of the Democrats and Republicans who voted for it.

A few years earlier, the Democrats proposed, and the Republicans supported the CDA (Communications Decency Act) in order to stamp out the dreadful effect of internet porn on the mind of young people. Everyone knew it was unconstitutional. Even Al Gore and Bill Clinton knew it was unconstitutional. Al Gore even said so. However, Bill signed it anyway. It surprised no one that the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in striking down the CDA as an unconstitutional infringement on Free Speech rights guaranteed by First Amendment to the Constitution.

These are just two examples. The truth is that neither party has a strong claim to being the party of “civil rights.” Consider the fact that every new law, and especially every new social program that forces citizens into contact with the government, is bound to further restrict individual freedom. That is what laws do by definition. Thus, resort to “government” as the answer for every social ill is bound to result in a severe curtailment in freedom. Both major parties are responsible for this, and both are equally reprehensible as a result.

Terry,
I don't believe in re-distribution of wealth or hand outs. That does nothing to improve efficiency, productivity and is not an effective use of resources. No one wants to destroy the incentive for people to achieve their potential. Just the opposite, we want more people to achieve their potential so there are more resources which ultimately enhances everyones quality of life. People in society must realize it does no good to fight each other. Taxes remain a necessary means of paying for social investments. What we have to ensure is that tax money is used effectively and not wasted. Taxes should not be a burden, but an obligation we each provide based on the benefit and opportunities we receive from our social structure. We in turn should make sure those taxes are used for American interests and not special interests.

Taxes are not to give people what they want. Taxes are for addressing what society needs. The vast majority of tax money should be directed toward preventive efforts, enhanced efficiency and productivity. Regulations should be directed at curbing inefficiencies and waste in our system. We should invest in social programs that help prevent crime. Don't build more prisons and lock up people at $20,000+/year. That is just a waste of talent and potential tax revenue those individuals could contribute to society. Yet, we treat the problem instead of trying to prevent it. Small wonder we have 10 times as many people per capita in prison as does England. We immunize people all over the world, because virulent diseases can spread and infect everyone. Moreover, we know prevention is cheaper than dealing with the disease itself. We all will suffer if we have poor air and water quality. We know as a society we must invest, address and prevent those problems. However, in health care our pay-for-service approach is ineffective and inefficient. Everyone's quality of life would be better if we made smaller social investements to prevent disease. We continue to poor choices about how we use our tax resources as reflected by Democrats who want to give money and services away and Republicans who fail to see taxes and big government is not the problem. Politicians should be far more invested in effective use of tax resources instead of trying to promise the most the to largest support base.

Everyone needs to realize the rich will always pay more in taxes than the poor to support this or any other society. It really is a function of how we use those resources that make the difference. The problem was never the tax burden. The problem has always been the ineffective use of taxes, waste and special interests. This is what destroys confidence in the whole taxation process.

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 6:10 PM

If this is supposed to reflect the way we pay taxes, shouldn't the story include:

* Hitting up the Chinese guy at the end of the bar for a loan to cover part of the tab

* "Borrowing" a few bucks from the company pension plan to cover some more of the bar tab,

and

* The fact that the richest guy owns the bar anyway because his parents owned the bar and gave it to him through their will?

Don't forget: the rich man probably got his money for the bar tab from the exploitation of poor men's labor earlier in the day in true robber baron fashion.

Well, BC, with your bar analogy, it looks like you've been reading up on the Kennedy's. You do know they made most of their money in illegal liquor sales? And the Kennedy's paid folks nothing too. Course, Teddy "manslaughter" Kennedy has all of his money in off-shore tax shelters all the while he proposes legislation all the time that screws the middle class.

BC-

The story should also have the poor guy getting a progressively smaller glass of beer as time goes on, while the rich guy gets 4, 5 & 6 beers as time goes on.

Despite all of Terry's whining about how the rich are so oppressed and mistreated in this country, the fact of the matter is that the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase at record levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

You still want to turn the issue/problem into a battle between rich and poor. That is not the fundamental problem or issue. The issue is ineffectiveness of the system, not who pays the most. The more efficient, effective and productive a society the higher will be its standard of living (regardless of where you fall). I would even say the more efficient, effective and productive a society the more wealthy individuals will live in it. This isn't anti-wealth it is pro-wealth. Wealth reflects the health of a society.

No one should want to take wealth away from people. Wealth is the reward for being a productive and contributing member of society. What I would like to see is for taxes that are collected to be used effectively to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of our society so more people reach their potential and become wealthy. Wealth is not the problem, it is a reflection of how well people fair in our social system.

That said, I am against accumulation of certain kinds of wealth. Wealth that is generated by practices that have nothing to do with enhancing efficiency, productivity, quality or effectiveness of our society. I am against wealth generated by individuals who exploit opportunities or loopholes in regulations that do little or even detract from social efforts to enhance efficiency and productivity and may even produce a deterioration in the quality of life of people. That is not the kind of wealth we want to generate. We want people who work hard, exploit their talents and contribute to society to be rewarded. We want to help as many people achieve their potential as possible. That happens when we invest wisely in our social programs to maximize our returns. Not by giving tax breaks to people because they want them. Not by giving handouts to special interests that do nothing but improve their profits not their products. Get involved. Change the way government works. Demand it be more efficient and effective using its resources. Don't waste productive time complaining about wanting to keep more. The more inefficient and ineffective government becomes, the more taxes they will be foreced to collect and the more wealthy will be expected to pay.

"The rich have options that the avg do not, such as shipping money overseas, and then the US gov't gets nothing. Bermuda is nice this time of year."

So why do they stary here, Terry? Out of the goodness of their hearts??

The only way we can collect taxes from businesses or rich individuals is by asking them really really nicely?

Maybe those wealthy individuals who choose to stay here realize that the burdens of expatriating are worth less than the advantages America provides, such as infrastructure, the military security umbrella, an educated population, a high standard of living, a robust economic environment, etc.

[This is an edited repost. What I previously submitted did not get posted for some reason.]

dt:

I read Krugman’s article, even before you graciously reposted most of it. What Krugman writes, as shown below, is slanted and incomplete to the point of being entirely false.

First, he chides people for being "shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war.” But he then observes, “Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup." This comparison is false and misleading.

True, Ronald Reagan did cut taxes. But he also forced a substantial amount of spending cuts from the budget to offset his tax reductions. Bush never did any such thing. To the contrary, he came up with a number of high price tag spending programs all of his own.

In addition, Reagan later raised taxes, and did so for several years running, after he found that supply side economics wasn’t working. Bush has left the same tax cuts in place the entire time, without regard to whether they were still working.

Moreover, under Reagan, we did not consume all that we had spent on the military, which means we wouldn’t have to replace the buildup with new spending for the same stuff. That, of course, is not the case with Bush’s war in Iraq. Our armed forces there are now chewed up and tired to the point that we face substantial costs in repairing and replacing what has been eaten up.

The difference between Reagan and Bush, just based on these factors, is so stark that it amazes me that Krugman could find any points of comparison at all.

Next, Krugman states, “People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago.”

And who does Krugman cite as a “conservative intellectual” for this proposition? Irving Kristol? But Irving Kristol is not a conservative. Irving Kristol is one of the granddaddies of neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism, in contrast to conservatism, entirely rejects the ideal of fiscal restraint and responsibility. Neo-cons have adopted the “New-Deal” style of big government and big spending, as well as a radical view of foreign policy (of the type that got us into Iraq). The only thing neo-cons share with traditional conservatives are some social views. If Krugman can’t tell the difference between a neo-con and a mainstream conservative, he has no business talking about the stuff, much less writing a book on the topic.

Next, Krugman misstates and/or misunderstands what Goldwater was trying to say when he said, “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.” This, to Krugman, is evidence that “disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism.” That is nonsense. Goldwater was saying that hat he wasn’t interested in making “big government” any better its “big-ness” makes that impossible. Goldwater believed that making government smaller puts us on the road to making government better. I guess Krugman believes no conservative true to his/her “small government” views are interested in good government. Only an ignorant person would make that mistake.

Next, Krugman confuses a pattern of violating the Constitution (as Bush did with his blanket authorization for warrantless wiretaps, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc.) with a violation of a “congressional ban” by some members in Reagan’s administration. Blanket violations of the Constitution are exponentially worse than violating a congressional directive – especially conservative directives of questionable constitutionality. To suggest, therefore, that Bush is standing in good conservative company because of Iran-Contra is pure rot.

Next, Krugman states that, “People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as ‘humiliating to the South.’” Here, again, Krugman twists everything so that none of it resembles the truth.

Reagan said in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South.” And he was right. A lot of southerners were humiliated by the fact the federal government stepped in to tell them how to run their political institutions. What Krugman failed to state, or chose to ignore, is the fact that Reagan signed the renewal for the Voting Rights act. Not only did Reagan have nothing bad to say about it, he claimed that it was something he “strongly support[ed].” What Krugman also fails to mention is that Reagan’s vehement opposition to the Voting Rights Act occurred in 1965, but that he had changed his mind in the ensuing 15 years. Apparently, to Krugman, politicians aren’t supposed to change their minds for the better; at least, not if they are Republicans anyway. Thus, it is entirely unjust and without foundation to put Reagan and Bush on the same “conservative” footing concerning the voting rights of minorities.

And finally, according to your quotes from his work, Krugman confuses Bush’s attempt at equating “dissent with treason” to Goldwater’s defense of Joe McCarthy (a Democrat). This is an apples and oranges scenario. There is simply no comparison. Goldwater only defended Joe McCarthy from censure. He didn’t want McCarthy censured because he was just as staunchly anti-communist, and was afraid a censure of McCarthy would change the government’s attitude to one of coddling communists. Goldwater did not, himself, engage in the practice of equating dissent with treason. Thus, there is no “conservative” analogy from Goldwater’s actions with which to compare to Bush’s.

Do you see now why I said that Krugman is full of it? He has systematically twisted and misrepresented conservatism in order to make it support the actions of Bush’s presidency from hell. He is totally ignorant of what conservatives think and believe, and has to resort to systematic falsification to make his points.

"And finally, according to your quotes from his work, Krugman confuses Bush’s attempt at equating “dissent with treason” to Goldwater’s defense of Joe McCarthy (a Democrat)."

Joe McCarthy was the Republican Senator from Wisconsin.

Talk about twisting and misrepresenting.

"And finally, according to your quotes from his work, Krugman confuses Bush’s attempt at equating “dissent with treason” to Goldwater’s defense of Joe McCarthy (a Democrat)."

Joe McCarthy was a Republican.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/mccarthy/

It's not good to make large errors like that when you are accusing others of distorting history.

Dear Anonymous:

I acknowledge my mistake regarding Joe McCarthy's political affiliation. For that, I apologize. My mistake was based on the fact that John F. Kennedy was McCarthy's friend. Kennedy never took a public view against McCarthy while in the Senate, and he did not vote to censure McCarthy (as his hospitalization saved him from that unhappy dilemma). He did, however, publicly denounce other, unfavorable remarks about McCarthy which painted him as un-American.

In any event, the foregoing mistake did not change the fact that what I said about Goldwater was entirely correct. That still means Krugman was wrong, and that my assertion about Krugman’s analysis is still correct. So, I can only surmise that I am dealing with the “Anonymous” who likes to make the tail wag the dog. That figures.

Furthermore, McCarthy, himself, was not indicative of a general Republican culture of confusing “dissent with treason.” McCarthy's reign of terror came to an end when he started attacking the Army and the White House. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower had had enough, as did many of McCarthy's Republican colleagues in the Senate. Republican Senator Ralph Flanders was the one who introduced the resolutions against McCarthy, which were reported from committee by Republican Senator Arthur Watkins. After the vote to condemn McCarthy was passed by a vote of 67 to 22, Eisenhower congratulated Watkins for a “very splendid job.”

John w.-

I accept your apology and I will agree that you are correct that Goldwater was willing to allow gross slander to go uncensured because of an irrational notion that defending the truth would lead the goverment to "coddle communists".

What a proud moment in Republican History. Thanks for reminding us.

* * * * *

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 4:30 PM

And thank you for dodging the issue by changing the subject. Now I know with whom I am dealing.

The only issue I had with you was your false statement that McCarthy was a Democrat. No subject to change.

John W,

It would be pretty hard for Reagan to out do the worst president ever, George Bush, but Reagan's "Voo-doo" economics were no screaming success. Despite Cheney's declaration that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter", I beg to differ. Economic expansion shouldn't come at the expense of soaring deficits.

In January of 1981, Reagan declared the federal deficit to be "out of control". At the time the deficit was nearly $74 Billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. By 1988, the national debt totaled $2.6 trillion. Over that period of eight years, the U.S. moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation. I'll give Reagan his due for changing course, however. That took a lot of courage and it was the right thing to do. Bush could learn a lesson there.

As far as Goldwater's position as an antigovernment conservative, I'm not sure what he meant by the statement that Krugman quotes above, but I always had the impression during the 60's that Goldwater was anti-government. I remember his catchy little phrases like " A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away" Perhaps you're right, maybe he was just championing a leaner, meaner government. I give him no pass on the McCarthy thing though. McCarthy's misguided witch hunt ruined hundreds if not thousands of lives. The guy was a fanatic and a bully and deserved to be censured.

As far as Reagan's position on the Voting Rights Act. First of all, I don't care if southern institutions were "humiliated" by legislation telling them how to run things. These clowns had ignored the courts and laws of the land for years. How symbolic that when Reagan kicked off his bid for the Presidency in 1980, he began his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., the place infamous for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers and voting rights abuses that inspired "Mississippi Burning". It's not the place I would have chosen to talk about state's rights and curbing the power of the federal government, unless I were pandering to the segregationist vote.

Also, the extension of the Voting Rights Act that Reagan signed, was not the one he championed. The administration's version would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and stripped the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of Civil Rights. IMO, Reagan signed the extension to the Voting Rights Act as a matter of political expediency after spending a great deal of time and effort to undermine the very same legislation.

And don't even get me started on his environmental policies. While he had a decent record as governor of California, as President, Mr. "you've seen one tree you've seen them all", was a disaster:

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/06/10/griscom-reagan/

Anyway, getting back to Krugman. I've followed all the NY Times op-ed pieces for years and found Krugman to be credible if not prescient on a majority of issues. Conversely, I often disagree with Times columnist Thomas Friedman's opinions, although he seems to have come around to the folly of the Iraq War.

I read Friedman's "The Earth is Flat", and found his assessments of globalization to be overly optimistic. I think the middle class is getting squeezed big-time in the new economy. I see it in my own situation, my family's and friends. I doubt that Hillary is the answer to the plight of the middle class, but I haven't seen any Republican candidates that seem capable of righting the ship.

Government is necessary, not evil as some cons would like to portray it. It's just a matter of finding the right balance of programs, funding and staffing with people who are dedicated and capable caretakers.
My mother worked for years as a community council liaison to the city planning commission. Her efforts are credited by politicians, historians, and planners, past and present, as helping to preserve and beautify our city. Government is not the enemy, just bad government.

The only issue I had with you was your false statement that McCarthy was a Democrat. No subject to change.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 5:48 PM

But you raised another issue concerning Goldwater's defense of McCarthy. That detracted from the point I validly made, and which you failed to acknowledge, which is that Krugman's analysis of conservatives is substantially false and misleading notwithstanding my mistake concerning McCarthy’s party designation. By your methods you have drawn a "red herring" across the path of discussion.

With regard to your other posts, I have the following to say:

1. You claim that “S-Chip programs ARE state programs. They ARE run by the states.” This is not true. These programs are neither wholly state nor federal programs but, rather, a convergence of State programs that are funded and regulated in large part through the cooperation of the federal government. If they were truly State programs, then nothing President Bush did in his recent veto would be of any consequence. He can’t veto a State program. As long as the States have to play “mother-may-I” with the federal government to obtain funding, they will not truly be “State” programs.

2. You next suggest that federal funding for these programs is important because “disparities in state wealth” creates the need for federal intervention and application of wealth redistribution. I have issues with this viewpoint.

You are merely defending a false dilemma. Funding for the States’ part of the program comes from taxes they raise from various sources, the most common being income tax. Funding for the federal government’s part comes from nearly the exact same source – the people. There has never been any dispute that the feds and the States graze their cattle on the same pasture, so to speak. So, what we have is the federal government taxing people in order to give it back to them in different proportion, by State, to the amount paid in. If, instead, the federal government didn’t get involved, and didn’t tax people to fund the program, the States would have money to fund these programs themselves. Actually, they would have a lot more money available because they wouldn’t then be paying for the federal overhead needed to administer a wealth redistribution scheme. So what you call “necessity” is actually created, in substantial part, by the fact the federal government is involved at all. That makes the whole argument rather self-justifying, which is to say, not at all.

I defy you to prove, through more than assertions and conjecture, that any State would be incapable of funding these programs by themselves if the federal government: 1) did not fund them, but 2) also abstained from taxing in the amounts it pays into those programs. Until you can do that - and won’t hold my breath until then - your argument falls flat on its face.

3. Third, I already know from previous discussions that your views regarding my constitutional argument flow from ignorance of the subject matter. In fact, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), and its companion case, Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) were both incorrectly decided and would undoubtedly be decided differently today. This is true because:

1.) Both cases misapplied the holding in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), to the extent they claim Butler stood for the proposition that Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare.” To the contrary, Butler held that Congress cannot transcend the constitutional limits against regulating a purely “state” function through the guise of spending money, thus making the “limited” federal government an unlimited one. The holdings in Helvering v. Davis and Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis jettisoned that limitation without any substantial discussion. The distinction created in Butler, but lost in the two latter cases, was critical to both decisions.

2.) Both Helvering v. Davis and, by implication, Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis also rested on the theory that States could consent to or contract away their own sovereign powers to enlarge the powers of the federal government, so as to negate any claim that the federal government exceeded its powers or unlawfully intruded on the powers reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment. That argument was specifically rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181-83 (1992) in clear and unmistakable terms. It said, “Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the ‘consent’ of state officials.” (Id. at 182.)

- and,

3.) Neither case, and none of the other cases relied upon by the Court in reaching its decision, ever explained how the “general welfare” language of the taxation clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) became a power separate from the power of taxation (which Butler said it wasn’t), or could create an unlimited government with unlimited power when it spent money (which Butler said it couldn’t do), or even how such a construction does not violate the principle that the federal government is a “limited” government with defined powers (U.S. Const. 10th Amend.), when the holdings of both cases are susceptible of no such limitations.

They were wrongly decided, plain and simple. With that much going wrong with them, it is not difficult to believe the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule them eventually. With the current court as conservative and “originalist” as it is, that might happen a lot sooner than some might think. If there is one thing that can be said for sure about the U.S. Supreme Court, it is that a majority of its current members are very interested in establishing traditional limitations on government. So, you can go ahead and think that Helvering v. Davis and its progeny constitute good case law. I wouldn’t make that bet.

dt:

Just a few more observations are in order here.

First, Reagan had the grace to abandon his “voodoo” economics when he understood they weren’t working. He also realized that deficits are not good for the country. That is why he reversed his course, or at least tried to reverse it. That proves Cheney’s reliance on Reagan’s policies, as precedent, is false and misleading. It also demonstrates there is no clear continuity of policy from Reagan to Bush, as Krugman attempted to claim.

Second, your impressions of Goldwater are correct. He was anti-government to the extent that he believed, like many modern day Libertarians, that a small government, limited to its constitutional duties, is the only tolerable one. Thus, it was outrageous for Krugman to take his quote out of context to mean that conservatives don’t favor good government. Small government to a Goldwater conservative, is good government.

Third, that Reagan may not have fully favored certain portions of the Voting Rights Act doesn’t put him anywhere near Bush’s active attempts to disenfranchise minorities. Whatever Reagan’s reservations may have been, he kept them to himself at any time it really mattered. That hardly traces a continuous path from Reagan to Bush on the issue, as Krugman would have us believe.

Fourth, I totally agree that governments are necessary. We’ve had this discussion before. Where you and I respectfully disagree is over the degree to which government is necessary. I find government a lot less necessary than most, drawing the line at where it transcends its constitutional powers. I also firmly belief that State and local governments are under-used; and that the larger a government becomes, the more wasteful and “broken” it becomes out of it inability to manage its own complexity. I believe that is where the federal government is today.

Peace.

"I defy you to prove, through more than assertions and conjecture, that any State would be incapable of funding these programs by themselves if the federal government: 1) did not fund them, but 2) also abstained from taxing in the amounts it pays into those programs. Until you can do that - and won’t hold my breath until then - your argument falls flat on its face"

John you are thoroughly delusional if you do not recognize the disparity in ecomomies between the various states. Just look at median incomes. In 2004 the median income in Alabama was $36,406. In Maryland it was $59,762. At the same time Alabama had 15% of it's population in Poverty and Maryland 9.2%. Here's a news flash John, poorer states have greater needs to pay out for these programs with fewer resources to draw on.

2. John, make all the legal arguements you care to. You are not the Supreme Court. You do not determine the law of the land. The Supreme Court has determined these programs to be Constitutional. I know you hate that fact, but it in know way changes the truth. The statement that these programs are unconstitutional is as untrue as your statement about McCarthy.

As for your strong originalist opinion- I assume that means you believe the Federal government is banned from signing any contract or appropriation for a standing army that will be in affect for more than two years, and that the federal government should be forced to rely on state militias under the control of state governors as the Constitution demands, correct?

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

(Try to find in there any place where it says the army can be called out to invade and occupy foreign nations.)

Come on John, are you a strict constructionalist or not? Is the United States Army as it's currently formed Unconstitutional? It's clear what the founders intended.

Of course it's a silly notion to believe that those provisions can be followed precisely at this point in history. Time has moved on. It's equally silly to try and force your 1832 nullification crisis notions on the 2007 economic life of this country.

Posted by: John W. | October 9, 2007 8:50 PM

Here's the deal John W, you can spin, twist, distort and whatever you want to do about how in history you believe that the Dems are equally to blame for US citizens losing their Constitutional rights BUT since 2001 it has been your party (Republicans) and your President (Republican) who have lied and distorted their way into getting ordinary (?) Republicans to volunteer to give up these rights(unPatriot act) in the name of "Patriotism".

I believe there's a name for this....I can't remember....hmmm...oh yeah, COMMUNISM!

If you are a real Republican you would drop your BS line about the Dems being equally to blame for this, buck up and vote these Neocons out of office in 08.

Put your money were your mouth is, chief.

Peace..

Anonymous:

1. Calling me delusional is neither fact nor conjecture. You lose the dare.

2. Comparing raw income data is false and deceptive. An income of $36K per year in one part of the country is a prince’s ransom, and in another it is abject poverty. A dollar goes much further in Hope, Arkansas than in Atherton, California. Too many factors come into play in every region in determining how far income will go to determine who can afford what. Thus, your appeal to statistical differences between regions fails to prove your point.

3. You are right in stating that I am not the Supreme Court. But I can and do count noses, whereas you don’t care to. With the addition of Roberts and Alito to the Court, there are now at least five rather reliably conservative votes on the Court. That leaves those cases open to being reexamined and overturned.

4. Calling my analysis regarding the cases “as untrue as my statement regarding McCarthy” is still just name calling. It is no analysis. Over time, in this and other threads, I have given you a fairly complete history of what the relevant provisions of the Constitution mean, what the founders said they mean, and what the Court’s have said regarding them. They support what I say. But you make no principled argument to explain why I and my sources are wrong.

True, you have a case to cite that says those laws are constitutional. But that is all you have: the opinion of a bunch of dead old men. I have more than once found myself in the unhappy position of losing an appeal even though I cited authoritative case law – exactly on point in law in fact – that said I was right. It is never enough to have a case that says a number of justices agreed with your position sometime in the past. One must be able to defend the reasoning of those cases to the satisfaction of the current members of a court. Courts have no qualms about overruling older cases with which they disagree.

The U.S. Supreme Court is no different. There was a time, for example, when the U.S. Supreme Court held the rights to counsel, jury trial, cross-examination and confrontation in criminal cases were not enforceable against the States despite the existence of the 14th Amendment. That all changed. The Court reversed itself on all of those issues. In the case of the right to counsel, the change took place within the space of twenty one (21) years. (See and compare Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).)

Closer to the point, the Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), clipped the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Prior to that time, the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) made it appear that Congress’ interstate commerce power was limitless. And why did this change occur? It occurred because the Court in Lopez decided to enforce a more historical understanding of the Commerce clause, as well as the principle of limiting the powers of the federal government to those that are enumerated in the text of the Constitution. (See Lopez at 566-67.) This re-emergent concern for the original understanding of the federal government’s powers is why I believe the Court is now open to overturning Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), and its progeny. Much of the same attitude toward the Constitution that led to the limitations on the commerce clause power in Lopez supports that result.

5. Your attempt to ridicule my “originalist” and “strict construction” argument with your hypothetical dilemma over Congress’ powers over the army would be pathetic were it not so wonderfully humorous. Your constitutional/historical dilemma simply finds no support in the plain text of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power “[t]o raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years . . .” (Italics added.) It doesn’t say that a standing army cannot exist for more than two years so as to require resort to the militia. It only says that no appropriation for the army can be for more than two years. An appropriation is a legislative act authorizing the expenditure of public funds for a specific purpose, funded from taxes. (See Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 7). Therefore, Clause 12 only means that Congress must re-visit the issue of funding for a standing army at least once every two years to determine whether to continue it with further appropriations. Congress complies with this in spades. In fact, it considers appropriations for the army multiple times every year. The debate over funding the war in Iraq is ample evidence of this.

Furthermore, there is not, and never was, a preference in the Constitution for the use of the militia over a standing army. The Constitution authorizes both without preference. That is why it explicitly grants Congress the power “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia . . .” Go back and read the Federalist Papers, Nos. 41 & 46. In them, Madison explains the whole thing adequately. As far as the 18th and 19th Century prejudice against standing armies goes, Madison observed that the maintenance of militias provides an adequate security against any possible threat from maintaining a standing army. (See Federalist No. 46.)

In short, the dilemma you pose is a false one. There simply is no constitutional objection to the Army as currently formed, and there never was.

6. It is equally humorous that you can’t find where the Constitution authorizes the use of the army to invade another country. Try looking at Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. It gives Congress the power, “[t]o declare war . . .” The power to declare war “necessarily connotes the plenary power to wage war with all the force necessary to make it effective . . .” (United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 622 (1931).) That power, “when necessity calls for its exercise, tolerates no qualifications or limitations, unless found in the Constitution or in applicable principles of international law.” (Ibid.) Neither the Constitution nor international law prohibits, per se, an invasion in pursuit of war. If, therefore, war has been declared, and sending the army to invade another country is deemed a necessary expedient to prosecute the war so declared, it is fully authorized by that declaration of war.

7. Having unequivocally demonstrated that your excursion into constitutional law to refute my views is entirely meritless, you are in no position to claim that “it's a silly notion to believe that those provisions [of the Constitution] can be followed precisely at this point in history.” It is not a question whether the Constitution can be followed at this time in history. It must be followed. Were this not the case, and the government could freely pick and choose which of its provisions to follow and which to discard, the Constitution could hardly be considered a law, much less the “supreme law of the land.” (See Art. VI, U.S. Const.) For, everyone is bound to follow the law. The fact we have a written Constitution means that it was intended to embody a paramount law that remains unchangeable by ordinary acts of the government. (Cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176-80 (1803).) If an act of the government can’t change it, then neither can the mere passage of time.

8. Finally, I don’t have a nullification crisis. You have a nullification crisis. My originalist viewpoint, at least, gives the Constitution meaning according to the plain import of its words and in accordance with the intent of those who framed and ratified it, to the extent that such construction is possible. In contrast, construing the Constitution by wetting a finger and sticking it in the air – so as to accommodate the preferences of the times, but without regard to what it actually says – denudes it of any real meaning. That, my friend, is nullification. That is your problem.

Posted by: John E | October 10, 2007 1:19 AM

I haven't distorted or twisted history, my friend. I made accurate representations of fact to make my point – which is a point you apparently didn't get.

Furthermore, I agree with your assessment of Duh'bya and his administration. I have often condemned what he has done, and what he continues to do. That is not in doubt.

My point to you is that you can't blind yourself to history or let your guard down even if the Democrats gain the White House sometime in the future. The Democratic Party is made up of men and women who are equally capable of good and evil - just like everyone else. History shows that men of all parties are capable of great evil and arbitrariness when handed enough power. Just take that to heart and remain vigilant.

That is all.

BC,

Would need the Chinese guy at the end of the bar if we didn't have so many useless gov't programs.

If the pension plan was in the hands of the patrons of the bar, we wouldn't have that problem.

Would you suggest that when the barowners parents died that the bar be turned over to the gov't?

Anon, and as that gap increases so does the tax burden they pay.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Dave,

Wonder why some European countries' economies are growing faster than our?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952079.htm

Correction to post above:

Should say "Wouldn't need Chinese guy.."