Democrats & Liberals Archives

Basic Qualfications

Senators were selected by state legislatures, rather than popular votes at large in the states they represented. A state could deny the right to vote to a citizen with impunity. There was no explicit guarantee of birthright citizenship, nor of equality under the law. The states could abridge the rights the federal government could not. And, it was once uncertain whether the income tax as we know it was constitutional. And once, the Constitution potentially gave Congress the power to found and support its own religion, and make laws against those it did not favor. Apparently, Christine O’Donnell, fierce defender of the constitution, did not know many of these things.

If somebody's going to lecture me about these things, I would hope they know better than me what they're talking about. They may complain about intellectuals telling them what to do, about how galling that must be, but really folks, isn't it much worse to be harangued about such issues by folks who demonstrate abject ignorance about the subject?

Republicans have idolized being the unpolished, rough, seat of their pants party, the folks who just do and say what feels right to them. They reason that such a person might have greater wisdom than some elitist who just sits in a room all day with their nose in a book. Well, sometimes you get lucky. And sometimes you get Bush, or folks like him.

What your legislators don't know about the constitutional history of this country can hurt us. When they don't know the reasons why certain policies were ended, where certain policies took us in times before, and what issues prompted legislation in its historical context, they don't properly guage the effects of changing the law, changing those policies in these times.

It's like the old saying goes: those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

It's amazing that Christine O'Donnell couldn't recall what the 14th Amendment said, even if it was just to comment on birthright citizenship. That's right there in the first sentence!

She could also comment on the effect that amendment had on civil rights, voting rights, or even on Corporate law, since it is the amendment that forms the basis for corporate personhood.

Christine O'Donnell's ads from the Chamber of Commerce could not come to her without that amendment. In their misguided Citizens United decision, the court relied on corporate personhood to assert the right that all we real people have: free speech. Without 14th Amendment interpretations that given personhood to corporations, no such right would be applicable.

And what about this last section?

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

It's amazing that she didn't know that the Separation between Church and State was an outrgrowth of the original interpretation of the First Amendment by Thomas Jefferson, and the Bill of Right's author, James Madison, who celebrated the positive effect of that explicit and exclusive separation.

And really, not knowing the Sixteenth Amendment, off the top of her head?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's the constitutional basis for the modern, progressive income tax, among others. You know, what the Tea Party folks are protesting and sometimes calling unconstitutional!

Really, folks. She or anybody like her might be writing the laws you have to live with. Might it be a tiny bit helpful if they paid attention in civics class?

I think the general principle in an election would be that you shouldn't elect to Congress anybody who doesn't have the wits to understand the laws they could impose on you.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 1:45 PM
Comments
Comment #310661

Pretty amazing and pathetic, isn’t it? And the Teapublicans are constantly screaming about the Constitution, too. Yet it seems like actual intelligence and knowledge of that document isn’t even mandatory when it comes to their candidates.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 3:15 PM
Comment #310671

Silly me. I thought you were talking about Congress.

Posted by: tom humes at October 19, 2010 4:34 PM
Comment #310675

Stephen,

You can add this to your list. It’s from a recent debate:

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #310676

tom humes-
Right. More generalizations, please. Would it be rude to ask for actual evidence of these constitutional infractions you’re implying, or for those constitutional infractions to be based on current constitutional jurisprudence rather than just personal opinion on the document?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 5:00 PM
Comment #310684

SD wrote; “That’s the constitutional basis for the modern, progressive income tax, among others. You know, what the Tea Party folks are protesting and sometimes calling unconstitutional.”

I wonder if any recall how many times during the health care debate obama, reid and pelosi told us that folks who declined to be covered would pay a penalty…not be accessed a tax. They absoutely insisted that it was not a tax.

I watched an interview last night with the Attorney General for Virginia. Virginia has sued the federal government over this very issue and the verdict is now in the hands of a federal judge. Virginia argues that the HC bill requires a penalty for not buying health care coverage which would violate laws already on their books. The feds argued that it is a tax, not a penalty, and thus legal.

So now…what the gang of three OPR promoted as a penalty is now being argued as a tax. Very slimy…very slimy indeed. But then, they are liber/socialists and what more could one expect?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 6:15 PM
Comment #310686

Here’s a link to the Virginia case mentioned above…

http://www2.newsadvance.com/news/2010/oct/18/6/federal-judge-rule-end-year-virginias-health-care—ar-570498/

“U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson announced his plans at the end of a 2½-hour hearing on state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit challenging the federal statute’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Hudson said he is aware his ruling will not be the final word in the case.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #310687

What ever you want to call it RF. Its no different then being forced to buy auto insurance. They do it to protect those who do.

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010 6:41 PM
Comment #310690

What ever you want to call it RF. Its no different then being forced to buy auto insurance. They do it to protect those who do.

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010

Jeff, please note that I will not be asking you for any constitutional opinions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 6:54 PM
Comment #310691

NBC News: 100 Democratic Seats In Play
Monday, 18 Oct 2010 08:41 PM

The electoral fortunes of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have eroded so badly over the last several weeks that there are now more than 100 House seats up for grabs, according to NBC Nightly News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.

Leading the network’s nightly newscast Monday night, Todd reported that more than 100 seats are now “in play” – meaning the incumbents that hold them will poll less than 60 percent on election day.

Todd cited analysts from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Republicans only need to net 39 to take control of the chamber.

The result is that President Barack Obama is looking at losing nearly twice the average number of seats lost by a sitting president since World War II – a staggering assessment by voters on the most activist Congress since the 1960s.

Citing their latest polls, including an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in which 51 percent say Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker is “unacceptable.” NBC said analysts in both parties now expect Republicans to gain control of the House, and possibly, the Senate, where 10 seats are needed to tip the balance.

“Since World War II, a president’s party has lost, on average, nearly 25 House seats and four Senate seats in a midterm cycle,” Todd wrote on NBC’s “First Read” political blog.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-tea-party-congress/2010/10/18/id/374097

Could the liber/socialists help me understand why the voters are so angry with the dem party? What is it about the OPR bunch that is causing so many dem seats to be at stake?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:00 PM
Comment #310692

Jeff, please note that I will not be asking you for any constitutional opinions.

Nor will I be asking you. And much like sports the game has yet to be played.

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010 7:07 PM
Comment #310694

Jeff, unlike your post offering a constitutional opinion, I offered none, merely posted a link giving opinion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #310698

I was not offering an opinion I was stating a fact that it is aganist the law to drive without auto insurance in the state of Missouri. This law was passed by republicans signed by republicans and I might add that It is a good law. Was it constitutional? I don’t know but a good law is a good law same as health care.

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #310700

Stephen

Speaking of qualifications - what about Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Green.

I don’t know who is a witch, but it is clear Green is just an idiot. He won the Democratic primary.

Re qualifications 2 - How about Harry Reid. The man who told us we were defeated when troops were still in the field. I would vote for a witch, a whore or a yellow dog before I would vote for Mr. Defeat Harry Reid.

Meanwhile - like many Americans we are learning that our insurance premiums will be going up. Not a surprise. We knew this would happen. Obama care extends insurance to more people, gives more away and raises costs. Only a Democrat could think all those things could happen w/o raising premiums.

Posted by: C&J at October 19, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #310701

Marysdude
Your quote from O’donnell is a mis-quote. You need to clarify. Ya I know the liberal press printed it that way. But it is nice to get the correct quote.

Posted by: tom humes at October 19, 2010 7:30 PM
Comment #310703

Jeff wishes to defend the HC bill by writing; “I was not offering an opinion I was stating a fact that it is aganist the law to drive without auto insurance in the state of Missouri.”

Simple question Jeff…is one required to drive in Missouri?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #310707

Alvin Green is an idiot we can all admit that but we are not trying to defend him. But compared to Jim Diwit he might be the lesser of two idiots. And Harry Ried what did we win I think we lost. I think we lost alot of brave american men alot of money all for a lie.

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #310708

I might add Jeff that the attorneys representing the federal government in the Virginia lawsuit failed to use your argument. Hmmm…I wonder why? Perhaps you should give them a call.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #310709

RF Is one required to live?

Posted by: Jeff at October 19, 2010 7:41 PM
Comment #310710

Ha ha ha! It’s hilariously funny how no one on the right wants to stay on topic here. They want to talk about everything but the fact that they’re running a candidate for the Senate who knows not a single thing about the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #310712

RF Is one required to live?

Posted by: Jeff

Sorry Jeff, that wasn’t a federal government argument either…care to try again or perhaps you should just read my link to see what they did argue and start over with a new post.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 19, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #310713

Adrienne
That’s not so funny. The majority of Congress is that way.

Posted by: tom humes at October 19, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #310714

Stephen, please include sources for “There was no explicit guarantee of birthright citizenship, nor of equality under the law. The states could abridge the rights the federal government could not. And, it was once uncertain whether the income tax as we know it was constitutional. And once, the Constitution potentially gave Congress the power to found and support its own religion, and make laws against those it did not favor.” I would like to get copies.

Posted by: Checkmate at October 19, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #310715

I think checkmate is referring to stephen daughertys post from 1:45pm. Some stuff was said without citations or sources. It’s a good idea to include these when referencing info that sounds like an outside source. I’m just sayin.

Posted by: Edward Acosta at October 19, 2010 8:18 PM
Comment #310717

To Wit: Christine O’Donnell is unqualified to hold ANY public office, let alone the US Senate. I’m a lifelong Delawarean and she’s a 4-year, carpetbagging, Delawarean via New Jersey who’s never held a steady job in the 4 years since she’s been in Delaware, unless you count the 3 times she’s run for the Senate seat in the last 4 years. She hasn’t held any type of leadership position or held ANY elected office before (no job and lives off of her campaign contributions).

Don’t get me started on COD!

Stephen, as for your assertion that only Republicans are devoid of any congressional historiography or constitutional knowledge as it relates to our nation’s history - you’re really reaching. To make an equivalent argument between Reps and Dems concerning historical perspective is not only elitist, it’s ridiculus.

To be sure, many Senators are not well-schooled on such matters, save for the pitiful folks who’ve been in one or both chambers of Congress since the early 1980s. And even some of them don’t get it.

Ironically, about 33% of ALL Senators and Congresspersons are lawyers! that’s actually what’s wrong with Congress as a whole. We need a more diverse group (business owners, doctors, entrepreneurs, educators and military personnel).

Cleary COD is a joke. She has no chance against Coons. Delaware registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 2.5 to 1. I was a Mike Castle supporter.

Castle said it best while talking to John King on CNN last week: “for anyone who thinks the Tea Party Express doesn’t understand politics…I’d tell them they’re 100% wrong…they know politics too well and are a formidable force.” Murkowski, after her defeat in Alaska’s Republican primary to Joe Miller, warned Castle about the TPE and how they would ‘come at him hard’ with lies, smears and negative ads. They did, and he lost. COD really did not have a chance (she had less than $20k in the bank for the primary). But the TPE came in from California and spent $250,000 in the last 2 weeks before the primary in ad buys. And then Palin and DeMint endorsed her. She went from a little-known ‘crack-pot’ wannabe, to a national figure.

Ironically, Karl Rove was correct. Castle would’ve won the seat in a landslide over Coons, put COD’s primary victory turned this seat from an assured Red one to an assured Blue one. Btw, Angle, Miller, Buck, Paul and some others are NOT the extremists that the liberal media paint them as. Christine O’Donnell, on the other hand, IS a socially conservative extremist. The funny thing is: the Tea Party ar basically a fiscally conservative group. COD is a chameleon, when it suits her needs. She was ‘broke,’ therefore, she jumped at the TPE endorsement and their money.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at October 19, 2010 8:20 PM
Comment #310718

Royal Flush stated: “Simple question Jeff…is one required to drive in Missouri?”

The issue is not that simple when it comes to health care. Hospitals and emergency rooms have a legal requirement to provide emergency care. It is not like the recent incident where a rural homeowner’s house burned down because he didn’t sign up for fire services with the county. Now, if you would like to get rid of the laws which require health providers to provide emergency life sustaining services, then we would begin to, sort of, approximate your driving example. Until then, the uninsured costs will be passed onto the private insured or the government. Does it also not strike you that as humans, we will all experience a catastrophic health event and require medical care? You can theoretically avoid driving all your life, but you cannot avoid a significant medical event.


Posted by: Rich at October 19, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #310720

Royal Flush-
The AG for Virginia is suing Michael Mann, the climatologist over his research. Isn’t that funny? Big government is so horrible when it requires you to buy health insurance, but it’s absolutely terrible when a scientists publishes research you don’t agree with, isn’t it, and that has to be stopped!

Sit in judgment of Democrats. That’s all Republicans do anymore, as we bear the burden of cleaning your ten thousand messes and putting out the ten thousand fires you started.

As for our political fortunes?

As a Democrat, I lived through a period where your party had hold of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. If we lose the house this time, I’m sure Republicans will give Americans plenty of reason to want it back in our hands, and people like me will point to your folks and say, see what I told you? They’re the ones who have held up just about every bill we tried to push to get you jobs. See how they use their powers for frivolous purposes, to try an unseat the President you elected? See how they seek to cut and corrupt Medicare and Social Security? See how they side with polluters and with Wall Street? See how they try to shut down the government?

How do I know I will be able to say this, if your folks win? Because, one, the words will be given truth to back them from the evidence of your party’s actions, and two, your part has absolutely no checks and balances left within it that would enable it to help itself.

And that’s if you win. If you don’t, God help your party, because it certainly hasn’t been a party to take losing all that well.

And really, look at the situation you’re volunteering to be majority in. You really think the American people will have patience for anything less than positive action on their behalf? Do you really think they’ll let you govern from as far to the right as you wish to? And when you don’t get that wish, where will the people your folks brought in with your promises of a Right Wing renaissance go? Your people will have even less patience for positive action on the majority’s behalf than the majority will have for inaction towards its needs.

Even if you win, you are ****ed, because you cannot remain pure on the Right Wing BS, and still govern from the center as people will expect you to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 9:08 PM
Comment #310727

Fourteenth Amendment:
Birthright Citizenship is mentioned in no previous amendment or section of the Constitution, although it is hinted at in the requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. So, no citation, as the truth of the statement is self-evident, and the Constitution is not difficult to find on the internet.

On the next count, the equality of rights concerning state governments, the Constitution explicitly declares that one will have to forgo full representation to the degree one disenfranchises citizens of the state. So, that’s self evident. The other part might not be, so let me cite This article on the matter:

The second privileges and immunities provision appears in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. During debates surrounding adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Washington’s interpretation of the parallel Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV was frequently referenced. While the Article IV clause was designed to ensure that states not discriminate against other states’citizens in the protection of fundamental rights, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was designed to ensure that states afforded basic fundamental rights to their own citizens, bridging the gap left by Article IV (Colgate v. Harvey, 1935). As Senator Jacob M. Howard, a major figure in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, noted during debate in the Senate over the proposed amendment, “The great object of the amendment is … to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect [the] great fundamental guarantees” of the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Bill of Rights.

The causes and necessity of the 16th Amendment are laid out here, In this article.

Also, in terms of the necessity of the freedom of Religion and the Establishment Clause’s effect, you have Baptist minister’s opinion:

But evidence for the “wall” goes back even farther, to Baptist minister Isaac Backus, who declared in 1773, when “ church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.”

Remember the letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he assures them of the wall between Church and State? It came from the man who said that it didn’t break his leg or rob his wallet if his neighbor had twenty gods or none at all. It came from the man who wrote the Virginia Declaration of religious freedoms. For many folks of that era, their experience of organized religious was even worse than ours, as many old world countries recognized little or no barrier between church and state. The authoritarian might of the churches imposed on citizens, when backed by government. And Government often corrupted the church in turn.

Some folks do not remember what things were like before we had all our treasured freedoms, what governments could do to people. In our good fortune, we are sometimes ungrateful for the gifts we are given through the constitution, the rights that are secured.

Ignorance is the poison of freedom. It undermines rationality, it leaves one willing to bargain away what one should keep, and take to heart what you should throw away. Unless you know what we suffered for the lack of a law, one is not well advised to discard it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2010 10:01 PM
Comment #310728

Stephen

Republicans will probably win the House; Democrats will keep the Senate. But that will be enough to restore some confidence. The people will know that Obama will not be able to push his misguided revolution any farther and with Nancy Pelosi back to where she belongs, we will have a surge of enthusiasm. Without a second stimulus, which will have zero chance with a Republican House, you will see a much better economy by next year.

It might even help Obama, but I figure his arrogance will still take him down in 2012.

Posted by: C&J at October 19, 2010 10:03 PM
Comment #310731

This is a good prediction site, Intrade Data Forecast:

http://electoralmap.net/2010/house_seats.php

It has Republicans picking up 55 House seats and 8 Senate seats.

As for requirements to buy HC insurance; the courts will decide if it is Constitutional. All the hype on WB is no more than hype.

Stephen’s comments about Republican candidates is incorrect, or commonly called lies. No more than liberal talking points. Stephen, if your going to write a post, don’t insult our intelligence by quoting material from a left wing web site.

Posted by: TomT at October 19, 2010 11:06 PM
Comment #310736

C&J-
Well, I see you’re not breaking your arm patting yourself on the back about how great and good Republicans are for the economy.

Let me be blunt: it doesn’t matter if your investors have faith in the economy, if consumers don’t have the jobs or the money to spend to buy their products and services. That’s called a negative return on investment, and it means that people aren’t waiting to bask in John Boehner’s holy orange glow. (Or is that wholly orange?)

Give me a break here. You’re again playing around with the voodoo economics, assuming that what you believe is good for the economy is automatically good, even though we’ve seen those same principles tested to failure in the last decade. I know the triumph of faith over adversity, but this is ridiculous.

If you folks win, trust me, folks will not be yearning for good old fashion laissez fair economics. They’re not pining for the return of Herbert Hoover. They want action, and if they see your people as the self-righteous obstacle to everything they ask, God help you. If you think they’re mad at the Democrats for falling short, what makes you think you’ll get better press for your typical hijinks?

Republicans succeeded in frustratign people about the Democrats, not enlightening them about the wonders of right-wing policy. Take heed of how low the Republicans in Congress score in popularity. That’s not an accident. Even if you win, it might only be to just take your turn at being unpopular.

TomT-
Whether I am incorrect or lying, the correct, respectful, logically valid way of making that claim is to offer some God-blessed evidence for your charges. If your claims are true, or mine false, there ought to be some story or some detail or some source to put that conclusion to the test.

If you don’t offer that, then we know that your claims are mere rhetoric, what is commonly called bull****.

You don’t get to weasel out of a good debate just because you have a personal aversion to conceding any fact that comes out of a liberal source.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 1:24 AM
Comment #310740

liberals are just wannbe marxists. progressives are weakneed marxists. I think dialectical materialism has left you guys for those on the other side. You are afraid to consider yourself a Marxist. I’m not afraid to step out. And I have called you out. Now are you one of us or not? Are you going to pussyfoot around the fence pole and dance to the tune the wannabes sing and say no, no not me. Then you convolute the mix by weakly touting something that sounds like left wing something.

Posted by: mark at October 20, 2010 3:48 AM
Comment #310742

Marxist, Socialist…words bandied about a number of times by a bunch of Social Democrats and Nazis.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 6:15 AM
Comment #310746

Dave Reichert doesn’t know his history or his law- Draws a blank on Glass-Steagall

mark-
I’ve never wanted to be a Marxist, and I don’t think most people here would call me weak-kneed.

As for Dialectic Materialism? I’m not real sure what you mean by that. In my view, thought and reality are not set up along bipolar lines. Reality is not simply a halfway point or an admixture of two ideas, or two things.

The Republicans are doing something either real weird, or real dishonest, in my opinion. Practically speaking, they know that the expectations on the Democrats were that they’d take care of things, that they’d legislate change and all that. So, they’ve taken advantage of that by blockading everything and making what they did get done politically radioactive.

Maybe they believe that they can exploit this tension, and get people to back their ideas.

But the tensions in society that gave rise to the Democrat’s newfound party haven’t changed much. Americans are still suffering, economically, and they still want to see more integrity and more action on the people’s behalf. I think Americans, however confused they’ve been by Republicans, still want intervention. They still wanted somebody to plug the leak in the gulf. They still want somebody to get them jobs. They still want people to get Wall Street and the banks under control.

But is that a conflict that Republicans are willing to resolve? No. They’re just going to get right back to what they were doing before.

Anybody citing a tension between opposites should understand that in terms of popularity, Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress are not not on opposite ends. They’re on the same end.

So, whatever happens, Republicans will get hit with the same demands from voters. The last two times they were visibly the party of no while in a position of Government, they got hit like they stepped in front of a freight train. It’s only when they can hide behind a White House and two congressional majorities controlled by Democrats that they can get away with being obstructionist. Once they’re expected to do something, they’ll have two choices: create gridlock as the party in charge of a government institution, or avoid it and cooperate.

Either approach creates dangers because the people who would vote or not vote for these folks are not pulling in the same direction. Tea Party Republicans will reward obstructionism, but other Americans will not, not if they can see it. If Republicans start kicking people off of unemployment benefits, if they start shutting down the government and making granny’s check come late, their majority won’t last long.

But if they don’t do it? Then they can’t satisfy their base, which has gone far outside the mainstream.

Republicans can’t ultimately resolve the conflict between their base and the rest of the electorate. For that reason, any majority they gain will always be on thin ice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 8:07 AM
Comment #310749
Republicans succeeded in frustrating people about the Democrats, not enlightening them about the wonders of right-wing policy. Take heed of how low the Republicans in Congress score in popularity. That’s not an accident. Even if you win, it might only be to just take your turn at being unpopular.

And Stephen, for two years you’ve done nothing but post article after article, word after word, not to elighten anyone about left-wing policy, but to simply bash Repbulicans.

You do the same thing and yet you seek a different result?

Posted by: George at October 20, 2010 9:40 AM
Comment #310752

Frankly I’ve read several posts by Stephen that extole left leaning to centrist policies over the conservative agenda. He spends a lot of time talking about the inflated ego’s of a party that has a poor track record compared to their actual accomplishments, but there is plenty of positive meat there as well.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 10:25 AM
Comment #310755

Stephen,

I took this little tid-bit from the closing statement by Tom Perriello in his debat recently:

“I believe we’ve taken great steps to try to rebuild America’s competitiveness,” he said. “We’ve got to get out a mentality that says the right solutions are the ones that turn things around overnight. Instant gratification is part of what got us into this place. A greed and instant-gratification culture in Washington among politicians looking for symbolism instead of solutions. On Wall Street, people who are building an economy around speculation instead of building, making and growing things. And even among homeowners and consumers.”

Compare it to some of the things coming out of O’Donnell’s, Paul’s, Palin’s, Angle’s, mouths…and know that somehow he is trailing in the polls. Sometimes it just don’t pay to get up in the morning.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #310761

Stephen
You preach dialectial materialism, which is the basis of Marx’s teaching and you don’t want to be called one of us. Sounds like some of that Catholic teaching you read about. Somebody denying he knew someone before the rooster crowed. Is that how that goes? Either you are in the camp or are out fishing with the enemy.

Posted by: Mark at October 20, 2010 12:05 PM
Comment #310763

George-
So, I can’t criticize my opponents, or point out where they are wrong? I don’t idlely criticize the Republicans, I use facts, and I propose alternatives.

Meanwhile, where are the shadow initiatives of the Republicans? Where are the great reforms? What else do they got beside repeal this, and repeal that? The GOP has become nakedly about stalling the Democratic agenda and rolling back what reforms liberals have managed in spite of their endless procedurally generated gridlock.

This site is called Watchblog- as in a mix of Watchdog and Blog. The purpose was to have each side keep the other side honest, not just engage in political flame wars. Well, you know what? I think the Republican Party candidates are an insult to the voters, they are of such low quality. The only thing that makes them viable is voter frustration, but a lot of voter frustration has something to do with the progress that Republicans blocked in the House and Senate.

And you know what I usually do to criticize them? I post the facts about the candidates and the leaders. Take this latest gem:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has thrown her support behind fellow Republican John Raese (RAY’-see), but she also temporarily relocated his U.S. Senate bid to Pennsylvania.

Raese is running in West Virginia. Democrats were quick to seize on a Tuesday message from Palin’s Twitter feed that named the wrong state while touting his candidacy.

See, that’s stupid on a prima facie basis. I can do the same thing about many Republican candidates this season, and that makes me pretty damn sad. I mean, “I am not a witch.” Good heavens. They’re not even trying to elect quality people. In fact being professional, being coherent, being intelligent and well spoken seem to have become liabilities for Republican candidates.

So you get guys like Palladino who get into arguments with Reporters, and tell them they’ll take them out. You get Miller, who knocks a kid over trying to get away as his security detail handcuffs a reporter and turns a small, momentary annoyance for a candidate into a headline story in the newspapers.

There’s always, always some sort of rationalization that gets pumped into the Right-Wing Media after the fact to reassure or anaesthetize the Republican and independent voters, but still, how does this help the party? Ultimately, you’re coddling the idiots, building the appeal of extremists, pushing your party further and further away from being responsive to the voters and responsive to events.

And you know what? That will eventually catch up to you.

But Republicans continue to strain against the limits of this strategy, going in my view into complete political psychosis, rather than face the need for a renewal in the party. And by that, I mean, renewal in a real sense, one that makes them a center-right, rather than a far right party once more.

Finally, let me point something out about my posts: I have done my share of explanation of my party’s policies. I’ll appeal to that. But should I have to every time? I’ve published more than my fair share of such explanations. I’ve written hundreds of entries, thousands of comments. I deal out my share of criticism, but I defend and propose my share of policy prescriptions as well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #310764

Mark-
You can insist on what you want, but I’ve never really read Marx, and don’t care to.

I don’t believe that nationalizing or micromanaging industries is to anybody’s benefit. I believe in a capitalist economy with an appropriate level of rules to put limits on bad behavior that risks the integrity of the economy.

As for the Apostle Peter, you should recall that he first said he would never deny Christ. I have never claimed or pretended to an allegiance to socialist policies. So, there’s no rooster-crow moment for me, no shameful retreat as I realize I’ve disowned the philosophy I truly believe in. I really am not a socialist.

Sometimes, the opposite of a bad idea is simply another bad idea. I’d say that to right-wingers and Libertarians, too. You can’t bind the truth into simple syntheses of thesis and antithesis. I am a rationalist and an advocate for dealing with the natural world on skeptical grounds, but I am also a Christian, who believes in God and Christ and the Resurrection. Does that sound like contradiction to you? Then as Whitman might say, very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes. I don’t just think or deal with the world on one level, so to try an stuff me in whatever pigeonhole you want me to be in won’t work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 12:24 PM
Comment #310765

Stephen,

Conservatives are the very epitome of materialistic, so I ignored that part of Mark’s charge against you and concentrated on the ‘dialectical part:

Definition of DIALECTIC: logic

a: discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically: the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth
b: the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas 3: the logic of fallacy 4a: the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite;

also: the critical investigation of this process
(1)usually plural but singular or plural in construction: development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism
(2): the investigation of this process
(3): the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences usually plural but singular or plural in construction a: any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b: an intellectual exchange of ideas 6: the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements Origin of DIALECTIC: Middle English dialetik, from Anglo-French dialetiqe, from Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikē, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos
First Known Use: 14th century

Now, I don’t know about you, Stephen, but if I were accused of that, I’d be plumb proud. It seems to mean you talk a lot about things that need to be talked about and put up a good argument while doing so. And, the parts about exposing false beliefs and what-not. You’ve sure done plenty of that.

Marxism puts a class side to this by claiming the competition is rich to poor and powerful to weak, etc. And, when you think about it, that may have some truth to it, but isn’t competition what capitalism is supposed to be about? Conservatives believe in competition, but they want the deck stacked in their favor.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 12:43 PM
Comment #310770

Marysdude-
If by his words, he means that I am a person who tends to want to resolve conflicts between ideas through logic and reason, that’s one thing. But I am not a Marxist.

What I believe is that the rich should only gain additional benefits from the government as a side effect of larger policy aimed at creating a better situation for the public. They don’t need their power and wealth reinforced by the government constantly. It’s the average person who needs the help, and then so they can rise and fall according to their own mistakes and successes. The point is to make capitalism less law of the jungle, and more a real marketplace, with cheating of the customers and the employees discouraged.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2010 1:47 PM
Comment #310780

Royal Flush, as provided for in the original Constitution, all amendments to it, all Supreme Court rulings on it, all legislation not contested and overturned by the courts on Constitutional grounds, are the Constitutional law of the land. The Constitution is today, far more than that original document penned over 230 years ago. And that was by the design of that original document.

Where Tea Partyers and Republicans go wrong is in the attempt to view the Constitution as a dead and immutable document frozen in time and a vacuum glass box in the Library of Congress. That is not how that original document viewed itself, as evidenced by its contents and provisions for modification, interpretation, and legislative processes outside it standing the test of judicial review.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 20, 2010 2:50 PM
Comment #310784

From a blurb from Anderson Cooper:

When asked recently what qualified her for the senate, O’Donnell discussed her “graduate fellowship from the Claremont Institute in constitutional government.”

“By the way, the graduate fellowship she talks about from the Claremont Institute? The Claremont Institue is a conservative think tank, it’s not a university, and the fellowship lasted a grand total of seven days,” Cooper said.

Cooper then played a series of clips of O’Donnell basing her run in her deep analysis and defense of the constitution.

“Again, a lot of people, including myself, get confused about constitutional amendments,” Cooper said. “But not a lot of people are running for senate based on their deep analysis and study of the constitution.”

This as a follow-up on the great ‘debate’ SNAFU. Cooper just wanted to clarify what opportunities O’Donnell missed, by her inane response.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 3:59 PM
Comment #310790

Stephen said, “Whether I am incorrect or lying, the correct, respectful, logically valid way of making that claim is to offer some God-blessed evidence for your charges. If your claims are true, or mine false, there ought to be some story or some detail or some source to put that conclusion to the test”

Let me put this answer in the words of David Remer, “It’s not my job to research material for you; if you want links, look them up” Since when does one have to offer proof for their claims? We hear Obama and the liberals making claims every day, without proof.

Posted by: TomT at October 20, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #310795

I’d like to know, through all of this trying to shuffle truth around like a cat covering up crap…..just how proud are you right-siders, of all your imbecillic candidates?
O’Donnell was my favorite…sitting there like a deer caught in the headlights. (( “That really is in the Constitution?????” ))

Posted by: jane doe at October 20, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #310804

David,

You said, “Royal Flush, as provided for in the original Constitution, all amendments to it, all Supreme Court rulings on it, all legislation not contested and overturned by the courts on Constitutional grounds, are the Constitutional law of the land. The Constitution is today, far more than that original document penned over 230 years ago. And that was by the design of that original document.”

I agree with some but not all of what you said above. Specifically, “…all legislation not contested and overturned by the courts on Constitutional grounds, are the Constitutional law of the land.” This part is not true; the laws are not constitutional law. Each law can be overturned by a new law, thus it is not constitutional law. It’s just law.

That laws can be appealed to the Supreme Court for review of their constitutional status is long settled law. However, it is debatable whether that was “..provided for in the original Constitution,” certainly Jefferson didn’t think so.

Posted by: Rob at October 20, 2010 8:05 PM
Comment #310805

Stephen

You are absolutely correct, Christine O’Donnell is not qualified to become a Senator. Not even Karl Rove seems to think so as he is quoted in one of your sources as saying that her candidacy has assured that the Republicans will lose a Senate seat.

While you are asking us to throw our dim wits off the bus, you want to do the same. Start with the easy one, Alvin Green.

Posted by: Rob at October 20, 2010 8:13 PM
Comment #310819

Rob,

Who’s backing Greene’s candidacy? Who’s campaigning for him as Palin has for O’Donnell? What Democratic organization is spending any real money on his election? He says he’s a Democrat, so he does get the perfunctory introduction now and then, but he HAS been tossed under the bus. What would you expect? Someone in the party to ‘take him out’?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2010 11:19 PM
Comment #310831

Dude,

Don’t expect anything really; just commenting that the Republican’s don’t have the market cornered on unqualified candidates as the article suggests.

While O’Donnell is getting some fringe support (and Palin is now the voice of that fringe); no main stream Republican expects her to win, even Karl Rove in all his evilness has already thrown her under the figurative bus.

Posted by: Rob at October 21, 2010 10:06 AM
Comment #310842

Rob-
Marysdude is right. The man’s got tireprints on his back.

The difference is not that Republicans have idiots in their party, and we don’t. Both our parties have their share of fools.

But we write off the morons. Alvin Greene got in because nobody was really paying attention to that race. Well, Democrats aren’t racing in to support him, now are they? No more than you saw them racing in to save Murtha, Rangel, or Waters from their ethics charges. Democrats do not like to embrace embarrassments.

Republicans, by contrast, tend to rally around them.

And that’s how you get the variety of jaw-dropping numbskulls that have shown up in this election, people who have to be banished from the sight of Cameras to keep them from self-destructing.

Republicans do it because the alternative is letting Democrats win, which is seen as more terrible than being represented by room temperature IQs What the Republicans should realize is that sooner or later nominating these kinds of people, protecting them, coddling them, is equivalent to deciding to lose, or at least put into great question, this election or the next.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2010 1:42 PM
Comment #310848

Rob said: “This part is not true; the laws are not constitutional law.”

No, not constitutional law in the sense of the law being language in the Constitution. True, enough. But, yes, Constitutional law in the sense that those laws emanated from the Constitutional process for law making. Ergo, Constitutional in origin by process.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 21, 2010 3:05 PM
Comment #310859

SD wrote; “So, they’ve taken advantage of that by blockading everything and making what they did get done politically radioactive.”

What a bumbling sentence…sure glad I didn’t write it. Let me reword it so it makes more sense.

obama and the dems were swept into office with promises of change and Bush fatigue. Hopefullness about change quickly turned to horror as the public discovered that change meant socialism. The polls began to reflect the resistance of the public and the dems had to fight very hard to pass their socialist legislation loosing the votes of nearly all Reps and some dems. This is the blockage SD refers to.

Despite knowing how unpopular their legislative agenda was the liberal wing fought on, buying votes wherever they could be found and making compromises with their own members to get shit passed. And, what they passed was horrible…so horrible that SD calls it “radioactive”.

Now, facing another election most of these same liberal dems fear running on what they have done to America and are blaming Bush and Reps for the nasty stew they cooked up.

Some of the more crafty among them tell voters that had they not spent a few trillion dollars we would be worse off. Of course, the public isn’t buying that crap and thus we have polls showing a landslide election for Reps and Cons.

Now, along comes SD in his liberal political suit and tie, trying to sound like a knowledgable pundit, and tells us in effect, yes, the Reps will win and then we’ll all be sorry and next time replace them with more liberal dems.

Of course SD fails to comprehend that this country is leaning more conservative with each passing decade. The liber/socialists have had their (thankfully) brief time in the sun and will now slink back to that dark, dank cave from which they breed hoping to come into the sun again some day in the distant future.

SD would have us beleive that our problems are so great that even his highly vaunted liber/socialists couldn’t solve them in one session of congress. And so, with the majority turning to Reps and Cons SD, in his gloom and dreary forecast can’t see the light of a new day.

Getting caught up in political dreams is not uncommon. SD believe our salvation as a country can only be accomplished by the liber/socialists. He fails to understand even our recent history. I recall well the negative mood of the nation under Mr. Carter who fed that negativism with nearly every utterance. He based his reelection on a platform of America in descendence. We must learn to do with less, we must learn that we no longer are the great beacon of capitalism and individual freedom. America’s best days are behind us.

Well…along came Ronald Reagan bursting with new ideas and a firm belief that future America could be better and individual freedom was the engine that drives our economy and innovation. Of course, he was right.

And, SD will be astonished at what a new Rep/Con congressional majority can accomplish with a can-do attitude and by ridding us of the psuedo-socialism attempts by the last congress. We will once again have faith in ourselves, not in some overbearing, all-incompassing government. Individualism and capitalism will once again flourish despite the whining and negative yowls coming from the liber/socialists.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #310861
Of course SD fails to comprehend that this country is leaning more conservative with each passing decade. The liber/socialists have had their (thankfully) brief time in the sun and will now slink back to that dark, dank cave from which they breed hoping to come into the sun again some day in the distant future.

Man, what a bunch flamebait and malarkey!
Personally, I think we’re going to see just how “conservative” the vast majority of older voters are when the GOP slashes their Social Security benefits by as much as 50 percent, just so they can keep the Bush tax cuts in place for all the fatcats who earn over 250 thousand dollars a year.

Grandpa to Granny:
“Jeeze, it’s as cold in this house as it is outside! Wish we could afford to turn up the heat. So, what are we havin’ for dinner?”

Granny:
“Well, we’ve got one can of catfood left. But I don’t know what we’re gonna eat tomorrow…”

Grandpa:
“Damn Teapublicans! I always thought I was a conservative ‘cause Fox News and the Rev. Evan Gelical said we should. But you know what? We were hoodwinked! Next time I’m votin’ for the Democrats.”

Granny:
“You said it! I don’t why on earth we ever listened to them. You know, my father always did vote Democrat…”

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2010 7:44 PM
Comment #310862

Cute story Adrienne. To bad we all don’t live in your fairy tale world.

Posted by: MAG at October 21, 2010 8:03 PM
Comment #310876
Cute story Adrienne.

Actually it’s not cute at all. It’s absolutely horrible that the Tea-Publican Party has no qualms whatsoever about impoverishing old people who are barely scraping by as it is, in order to keep giving tax cuts for the wealthy — especially when Social Security currently has a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus.
But then, the radical right has been trying to do away with Social Security ever since it began, and it finally looks like they’re at long last going to get their wish.

To bad we all don’t live in your fairy tale world.

Yes, it really is too bad - because in my fairy tale world We The People would absolutely DESPISE the idea of impoverishing old folks, and disabled people, and orphans — just like we once did back before we had Social Security.

On the other hand, the Grover Norquistian drowned-in-a-bathtub fairy tale of the right is in believing that a cold, heartless world is a good thing, and that the deficit can be magically resolved by doing away with the entire social safety net. Even though the numbers don’t add up at all, you all just keep believing!!! Oh, and let’s not forget your fairy tale always preserves enormous tax cuts for the filthy rich, and always lets the multinational corporations write U.S. legislation so that there are no pesky regulations to hamper them. All in the vain and ridiculous hope that maybe THIS time around Wall Streeters and the Titans of Industry will finally be able to prove to those damn liberals that their utterly bogus and discredited theory (scam) of trickle-down “free market” economics WILL someday, somehow, magically create lots and lots of good, well paying jobs for every American!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 21, 2010 10:11 PM
Comment #310884

What SIFI books are you reading Adrienne? 2.5T surplus? SS will be broke by 2037. People on SSI haven’t got an increase in 2 years. Those fat cats that earn over $250,000 are the ones who are employing most of the people in this country. So keep on with your Robin Hood mentality and see what happens. The left are the ones who want to keep everyone impoverished with your so called entitlement programs and your “I know what’s best for you BS”. Those titans of industry are the ones who provide the jobs, just ask the auto workers, steel workers, rubber workers, so on and so on. If you don’t know you and all the rest of the American people still own 60% of GM. So YOU are one of those titans of industry.

Posted by: MAG at October 21, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #310893

Well MAG, I guess we’ll just have to see how that Tea-Publican Sheriff of Nottingham approach works out for the right amongst the old folks.

But lets get one thing straight here. Social Security isn’t an entitlement program. American’s have paid for it their entire working lives. People tend to get mad when they get screwed out of something they’ve already paid for — most especially when they’ve been counting on having it to help them get by in their old age.

2.5T surplus?

Yes.

SS will be broke by 2037

Dems have talked about raising the retirement age slightly in order to offset the chance of that.
The Tea-publican plan is to have killed off SS entirely by that time — with few people collecting any of the money they’ve paid in. But of course, tax cuts for the rich must remain at all costs! It’s Robin Hood in Reverse, if you will.

Those titans of industry are the ones who provide the jobs, just ask the auto workers, steel workers, rubber workers, so on and so on.

You mean the titans of industry who gave most of those auto, steel, and rubber jobs to workers over in third world nations? I raise a middle finger in complete contempt knowing that Americans have watched the vast majority of those jobs disappear through outsourcing — while the greedy titans continued to rake in their profits.

PS. Did you mean Sci-Fi? I’m afraid I have no idea what SIFI means.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 22, 2010 12:04 AM
Comment #310894

MAG,

Of course the fat cats are the ones providing many of our jobs (and sending many of those jobs overseas), and that’s how they got to be fat cats. I’m not sure what that has to do with anything that’s been said in this thread. At the end of the day, fat cats are all that’ll be laft to pay taxes. Apparently you haven’t figured this thing out yet…to the fat cats it’s all just a game of ‘King-of-the-Hill…winner take all…”damn the people, full speed ahead!” The last guy standing owns all the nickles.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2010 12:14 AM
Comment #310901

Royal Flush-
1) Obama still registers at about 47% on Rasmussen for job approval. If the policies he pushed for were really unpopular, if people outside the GOP saw him as a dangerous socialist, why is he still polling anywhere near fifty/fifty?

2) I didn’t say it WAS radioactive, I said it was MADE radioactive. As in, your people have done their best to politically sabotage it by turning the bull**** hoses on and soaking the issue. They talk about death panels and government takeovers and crap like that.

But if you actually show people the policies, it’s not radioactive on their account. Moreover, the Public Option and Medicare Buy-In, both proclaimed as socialist by your side actually increased the popularity of the measures.

3) The polls show a bad situation, on some fronts. But those are polls, and a lot of them are depending on the assumption that a whole bunch of Republicans show up, and a whole bunch of Democrats won’t.

Have you checked the early voting numbers yet?

Now, along comes SD in his liberal political suit and tie, trying to sound like a knowledgable pundit, and tells us in effect, yes, the Reps will win and then we’ll all be sorry and next time replace them with more liberal dems.

They come in Liberal?

Seriously, I have always said they might. Only you, with your wishful thinking, turn this into a concession.

Do you know that there may be as much as six points difference from reality for those polls, because many of them, Rasmussen in particular, don’t deal with cell phones? Food for thought: polls are just a sampling. That’s why we have elections: to tell what people really think, rather than guess from the answers of a relative few.

Of course SD fails to comprehend that this country is leaning more conservative with each passing decade. The liber/socialists have had their (thankfully) brief time in the sun and will now slink back to that dark, dank cave from which they breed hoping to come into the sun again some day in the distant future.

I hope more people like you are so overconfident. At that rate, they may think they have this in the bag. Tortoise and the hare, you know.

You say the country is leaning more conservative with each passing decade.

Is that why DADT Repeal has majority support? Is that why the youngest generation leads the older in how liberal their opinions are? You’re confusing a last gasp surge of Republican panic for an actual shift in the country’s Demographic politics.

SD would have us beleive that our problems are so great that even his highly vaunted liber/socialists couldn’t solve them in one session of congress. And so, with the majority turning to Reps and Cons SD, in his gloom and dreary forecast can’t see the light of a new day.

President Reagan, signed tax cuts into law in August 1981. It takes about 32 months, eight months longer than a two year session of Congress to break even on unemployment.

You’re dealing now with a recession that whent 4.1% deep, where Reagans was 2.7% Regan dealt with it with solutions that left this nation’s unemployment level above 10% for 11 months. Obama, with a much, much stronger recession, brings this economy back below 10% in just three.

We’ve done a lot, but your party’s cynical blockade of the Senate makes it very difficult to follow up on our successful strategies.

Getting caught up in political dreams is not uncommon. SD believe our salvation as a country can only be accomplished by the liber/socialists. He fails to understand even our recent history.

Says the guy who likely voted for Bush twice. Says the guy who seems to imagine that he’s fighting the hordes like Conan the Barbarian.

I recall well the negative mood of the nation under Mr. Carter who fed that negativism with nearly every utterance.

Death Panels. Leaving debt for our children. Out of control spending. Such positivism from the GOP. Ah, but I guess you reserve optimism for when the “socialists” aren’t about to take over.

He based his reelection on a platform of America in descendence. We must learn to do with less, we must learn that we no longer are the great beacon of capitalism and individual freedom. America’s best days are behind us.

Yeah, unlike that guy who ran on Hope and Change.

And, SD will be astonished at what a new Rep/Con congressional majority can accomplish with a can-do attitude and by ridding us of the psuedo-socialism attempts by the last congress. We will once again have faith in ourselves, not in some overbearing, all-incompassing government. Individualism and capitalism will once again flourish despite the whining and negative yowls coming from the liber/socialists.

Wait, are we doing real socialism, or- Never mind. You shape your narrative to the convenience of your plot devices.

Can-Do attitude. HA! Is that what I hear from the Republicans, who insist this economy can’t thrive on anything other than fossil fuels? Who insisted we let Detroit burn, rather than institute the successful bailout and structured bankruptcy?

Who insist that we have to fall all the way down to whatever bottom there is with no help?

This President actually started things, actually set Americans to work, created an energy policy that made some sense.

Over the last century, the folks who pushed the country to its heights didn’t always wait for the market to do it first. Very often, we set goals as a people, with our government to rise to the occasion.

The American people need not hobble themselves by giving up on the option of having their government help them. They need not do everything just to please the libertarians and market fundamentalists who believe that nothing good can come out of people turning to the government, even with a century of examples to show for the merits of that approach.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2010 1:29 AM
Comment #310909

So lets take away Social Security for a moment and lets see who would cry “Uncle” first. For to say that there is no longer a safety net in America than what to we do about the sick? Leave them in the streets?

What than can we do when they begin to break the law just to get a meal and seen by a doctor. Take them out back to the south forty?

Yes, the Baby Boomers would be the first ones hit as rest homes and retirement comunity closed. For without the income from Social Security community doctors, nurses, and medical staff would be out of a job. All while the old laid in the street hungery and sick.

And what about their children, shouldn’t they be forced to pay out of their own pockets for the problems caused by their parents. So forget about the fancy car or nice home you thought you could afford for taxed due to the increase in police protection, bio-hazard teams, and and other reasons. The mere fact that one making $250,000.00 a year would soon be considered Middle Class in a few years would make the Great Depression of the 20th look small.

Now, let us get back to the Real World and see what way “We the People” can do to solve the problem of America needing a safty net at all. For why Social Security is not perfect and at least one of the alternatives just won’t do. IMHO the Republicans and Tea Party are barking up the wrong tree in a matter of speaking. For if one wants to show they are responsible citizens than why should their Payroll Taxes be so high?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2010 8:17 AM
Comment #310913

IMO one way to get rid of this SS debate is to give people some choices to what kind of retirement fund they want. It could be a 401 style account, CD’s, Roth IRA’s or just drop it into the SS government slush fund as we have been. The problem with SS is that congress can’t seem to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar so some kind of firewall needs to be set up so congress CAN’T dip their grubby paws into it.
Also O’donnell is NOT qualified to be a Senator much like BHO is not qualified to be President

Posted by: KAP at October 22, 2010 9:45 AM
Comment #310922

KAP,
The problem is what makes a safe retirement investment when Governments and Corporations can invest/spend the money without being accountable for the results?

We would be better off IMHO to have a Personal Income Machine such as a Renewable Energy Power Plant. For I don’t see the Government or Society of Man doing without electricity for a very long time.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2010 10:54 AM
Comment #310927

That Henry will be a problem that will plague us for years to come.

Posted by: KAP at October 22, 2010 11:22 AM
Comment #310930

KAP,
I can only hope as a Child of the 70’s.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 22, 2010 11:44 AM
Post a comment