Obama Election, The End of Sovereignty

[JoeB131]

The GOP must not concede to Obama power over the debt ceiling.

Actually, they should eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling... instead of going through this dance once a year.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).

Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).

Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.

.

To be fair, Newt Gingrich tried to put one of those in. And Clinton and the Democrats shot him down.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).

Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.

.

To be fair, Newt Gingrich tried to put one of those in. And Clinton and the Democrats shot him down.

Yup, he saw what was coming.

And here's another "thought": If we had a national Balanced Budget Amendment, some of the funds that are currently pouring into treasuries would have to go somewhere similar, and where would that be? Municipal bonds, investing in our localities, for one thing.

Damn it, now I'm pissed off. I really, really, really don't like politicians.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

To find those most opposed to making fundamental changes in how we handle our fiscal policy, look for the ones who are benefitting the most from the way we do things now.

You will not find a single flaming liberal opposed to a balanced budget in this, the world's greatest and most prosperous nation.....provided it is accomplished at the same time we realize an end to domestic poverty, an end to illness-induced bankruptcy, a return to our place as the most educated nation, a sensible trade policy and a less interventionist foreign policy.

Who would find doing those things less valuable than a balanced budget?

 

[BlindBoo]

.

If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).

Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.

.

I think term limits on the critters would also help get more done per term.

Oh yeah and the critters shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from any laws either.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If our "leaders" (ugh, I always throw up in my mouth a little bit when I use that term) had any self-respect or character whatsoever, we would have a Balanced Budget Amendment so that both fucking parties would have to justify their taxing (or lack of) and spending (or lack of).

Self respect, character? Not holding my breath.

.

I think term limits on the critters would also help get more done per term.

Oh yeah and the critters shouldn't be able to exempt themselves from any laws either.

Oh yeah, believe me, I'd love to see term limits in addition to a BBA.

Add publicly-funded elections to the mix, to allow even less power for the political class, and I'm happier than a pig in slop.

But, again, not holding my breath on any of it.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you vote for this failure?

I don't think that any politician is ever 100% successful in doing everything they set out to do. A number of politicians who are beloved by their constituents are viewed by history as abject failures and those who are reviled by the electorate are later lauded as great men. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was that kind of politician. Both North and South blamed him for the Civil War and the death and destruction it caused. Plus he took all that land away from the plantation owners and gave it to slaves.

This is exactly the kind of things that today's Republicans are calling "re-distribution of wealth". The biggest re-distribution of wealth in the history of the world has taken place in the United States during my lifetime. And it's all been unward. The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling. In the meantime there are more billionaires in the United States, per capita, than in any other country in the world, and this all took place during a thirty year period of cutting taxes combined with runaway spending started by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

A capitalist society requires a large, economically vibrant middle class in order to have a willing market for its consumer goods. This is Economics 101. The number of poor is rising not because they won't work, but because their wages have, in real terms, not gone up in 30 years. I do taxes for have a long-time family friend who is making the same hourly rate he was making in 1990, when his daughter was born. He had a great job with a future in an expanding company and was in line for a promotion.

When my friend graduated from college, labour forecasts in his field basically said that there were extreme labour shortages in his chosen trade and he would have employment for life. With a family to support, he wasn't in a position to go back to school when NAFTA was signed and most of the jobs in his trade moved to Mexico. His employer, who had taken out big loans to finance his ill-timed expansion, went of out business. The remaining jobs in his field were paying half what he had been making. His wife went back to work. He finally got back to making his 1990 wages in 2008, and hasn't had a raise since. His story is not unique.

In 1990, we were both earning about the same amount. We're both still in the same fields today today as we were in 1990, albeit we both changed employers more than once. Today, I make twice as much as I did in 1990 and more than four times what I was making in 1985. And that doesn't include billable hours and bonuses, which, are nearly as much as I was making in 1985. My friend works longer hours than I do, and there's no air conditioning in summer.

Not everyone can or should be working in only the highest paying fields. We need trades people to repair our homes, our cars, our goods, and people to work in agriculture, and food processing, and to make our clothes. We need people to work in stores, in restaurants, and fast food joints. We need civic employees to clear our roads and pick up our garbage, but they need to be paid living wages, not the least amount possible. We need to be hiring people in our OWN communities and countries to do all of that work, we need to make our own stuff, giving employment to our neighbours so we can all rise together in dignity.



I could never vote for anyone who refers to people like my friend, and the people I encounter in my everyday life, in the manner which Romney did in his 47% speech.

Nicely written. Look forward to more of your posts.

Now...time for your education.

1. "The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling."
You couldn't be more wrong.

a. 'When you walk into the bathroom of the average American home you are a witness to history. It has taken centuries for the toilet and tub to end up in the same room. Those two conveniences, plus shower, washbowl, and running water are a grander collection of comfort and ease than even kings knew before the 20th century. ' (Readers Digest)
Could any competent person claim that pre-twentieth-century kings be called impoverished? Of course not. So, an American today matches the “comfort and ease” that kings once wished for!


b. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. The Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...ce=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


c. By 2001, the Census Bureau was reporting that the poor enjoyed as much or more of the indicia of comfortable modern standard of living as the middle class of thirty years before! As many or more cars, trucks, clothes dryers, and refrigerators in 2001 as the middle class in 1971!
Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 67.




2. " The number of poor is rising not because they won't work, but because their wages have, in real terms, not gone up in 30 years."
Leftist propaganda.


The smoke and mirrors of the poverty industry has you befuddled.

The new Obama poverty measure fails. It flunks the test of political neutrality and is based on misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand, says columnist Robert J. Samuelson.

That's because the new calculation would measure poverty on a sliding scale. Thus, if the average income of families in the United States increases so too does the poverty threshold. Talk about keeping up with the Jones. This new measure provides the perfect climate for left-leaning politicians to promote equalization of wealth through redistribution. The measure would bump poverty up 30 percent: more poverty equals more political fodder to argue for increased welfare.
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Obama's poverty rate measure misleads


Do a little more homework.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Now...time for your education.

1. "The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling."
You couldn't be more wrong.
.

Don't you frequently claim that the so-called war on poverty has been a failure?

Doesn't the above prove it's been a success, by your own measures?

 

[freedombecki]

The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.

1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...

....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.
These, the Leftists, wish for global governance….the end of our sovereignty.

2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives…and that doesn’t just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:

a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed ‘super-national political authority,’ saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.

c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations “… states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…. sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.”

d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....

a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.

b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?

c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.

6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.

Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...

..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'

The America our founders created has been the Camelot of the modern world. America of past days will always live in people's hearts as a land that was ruled by a deep sense of concern Americans had for each other, where the Senate was run by kindly spirits who were concerned for each other regardless of party, and ideas were presented to be voted on in a spirit of knowing the vote would be based on the decisions of conscientious people whose thoughts were for the good of everyone here.

Little by little, the value of voting on conscience has been traded for voting for changes that would place America's ventures and outcomes subject to a globalistic view, and not a national moral conscience.

It's conscience that has gone out, and a desire for a central world power to make decisions that would affect taxpayers' lives, only every little bit of that will require doing what the founders wished to be relieved of--a large central mass deciding global issues requiring agreement from the world around.

In my book, that is like returning to a time when emperors lived, or such powerful kings in distant countries ruled, so that when a disaster struck those not near the center of power would have to deal with all the bad themselves, while still providing wealth to the central government which, oh, and by the way, decided not to let the people of a given area have any say-so in resolving any dispute they had with another coutntry.

I think that places America back to square one that the Boston Tea Partiers faced in the weeks following their defiance to the Tea tax, just one more way to squelch a nickel from them without having to help them rule themselves.

We have a Congress that meets to pass taxes against the citizens it now ignores the laws of equality to tax.

Maybe we should just let them meet a couple of weeks a year and slam the door shut on the treasury as they leave Washington. Oh, and the President has to leave, too. And we can't have the Supreme Court taking over the government, so they have to get outta town, too.

That way, we can just live, work, collect our wages or profits, whatever that may be, and live in peace with each other.

If the Congresses can't do it all in their two weeks next year, well, we'll send them to 48 weeks of diplomacy school to work on how to get things done quickly through cooperation in as little time as it takes to decide things unilaterally.

That way, no group of lobbiests can cheat the system, because the Congress will be so busy in 2 weeks, they can get a year's work done, and then go back home and earn a living for their families. Since Time Management will be a problem for them, we'll require that as a prerequisite course to running for Congress. I'm tired of people getting to Congress and spending their first 18 months of 24 catching on to the system.

Less time for Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supremes to waste, and more time they can spend earning their own money to live, which will keep them off the dole to the american public.

If 2 weeks isn't quite enough, we can make it 3 months, but they really have to get out of town then, since it's not fitting for America to have too many laws passed too fast based on illegal things going on at voting areas like Philadelphia, where the voting was actually just precinct chairmen accepting only votes from Democrats in lockstep with votes needed to overcome the polling. I'm pretty sure what happened in Pennsylvania was illegal on November the 6th. Massive Vote Fraud

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Now...time for your education.

1. "The working class now live in poverty and the middle class are struggling."
You couldn't be more wrong.
.

Don't you frequently claim that the so-called war on poverty has been a failure?

Doesn't the above prove it's been a success, by your own measures?

1. Capitalism is the success, even in the face of mountains of red-tape road blocks thrown up by the progressive/liberal/Democrats and their Janissaries.


2. Pod People insist on giving credit to the government, even though it throws $20,600 in welfare benefits at every "poor" person in America....and still can't call the 'war' a success.


3. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.


4. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the 'clients' are far from stupid. The problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.



More data here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265982-obama-and-the-fiscal-cliff.html