Republicans & Conservatives Archives

C&J wrote; “If you ask the government to do it for you, it has to go through the sausage making and digestive processes outlined in simple detail above. What comes out on the other end is not always what you think you asked for.”

That’s for sure, the most recent example is the health care bill that emerged which few, if any, are pleased with. And, if not repealed by the next congress, it will take years to understand, interpret, and implement. The finished product is not the finished product and rarely is with any government entitlement program.

One only need take a look at what SS legislation originally intended and how it was structured and look at what it has become. Same with Medicare and Medicaid.

What would have been the chances of passage of any of these huge programs had the legislators, and public, known at the time what we know today? Would these programs have passed had we known of the multi-trillion unfunded liabilites we would face in the 21st. century? Not just no…but hell no.

One could argue much the same with Freddie and Fannie and a host of other programs that were conceived with good intentions and went terribly wrong.

It is the nature of the government beast…it must be fed and fed on a regular basis. Politicans mostly fear that if they don’t grow government it will shrink. Government is never static, but rather, hungry for more money, more programs, more regulation and such to justify its existence. It becomes a never-ending upward spiral of ever increasing cost to pay for ever increasing legislation.

Send congress home for four years and the nation would be better off by far.

I would like to add another organization to VOID, TEA and Coffee. I call it S.A.A.C.

Save America Adjurn Congress

This is what every american needs to know. The republicans as a party would undo every safty net in this country. RF exposes this in his post. The teabaggers scream leave my ss and medcare alone when in fact the people they support are trying to do just that. I do wish the republicans could go home and get out of the way of those trying to get this country back to work.

This old progressive is willing to negotiate the social programs even to the point of privatising Social Security.

What are you willing to give up? Nothing? That is what I thought.

What about corruption in the military procurement process? What about GBL? Why are you always one sided about your government criticism.

HOW ABOUT A MAXIMUM INCOME LAW? Do you think that would destroy America, the world?

Jeff wrote; “The republicans as a party would undo every safty net in this country. RF exposes this in his post.”

Really…is that what I wrote or advocated? Please explain what part of my comments led you to write such drivel!

Here’s my contribution for “Laugh For Today”.

Obama closes curtain on transparency

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-closes-curtain-on-transparency-468557-100595914.html

HOW ABOUT A MAXIMUM INCOME LAW? Do you think that would destroy America, the world?
Posted by: jlw at August 14, 2010 04:58 PM

You bet, get that on the November ballot…and a minimum income law to match the maximum. Then we’ll all be good little commies. We’ll pretend to work and government will pretend to pay us.

Scratch the surface of those who would advocate a maximum income law and you will find someone who can’t or won’t compete fairly in the marketplace and wants government to wipe their butt and nose with the same rag. Waaaa…I can’t compete…Waaa, I’m lazy…Waaa, I can’t take care of myself…Waaa, I am not willing to work but want everything my neighbor has.

What would have been the chances of passage of any of these huge programs had the legislators, and public, known at the time what we know today? Would these programs have passed had we known of the multi-trillion unfunded liabilites we would face in the 21st. century? Not just no…but hell no. THIS PART.

Jeff…you disagree and beleive they would have passed? Please explain.

I did not advocate doing away with SS, Medicare or Medicaid today. Sometimes when we take off our partisan blinders we can actually read what was written.

Yes I do if you like back at history before SS and medicare many old people lived in poverty. It was a horrible way to treat or elderly I would even say barbaric. Now I agree that changes must happen to keep them solvent like… now don’t get scared RAISE TAXES.

SOLVENT…dude…we’re talking trillions here. If government confiscated all the wealth of the top 5% in the country it wouldn’t be nearly enough. Is it that difficult to understand that what began as compassion has nearly bankrupted us? None of these safety net programs even begin to resemble today what was originally intended.

No matter what, some will just remain in their little fantasy land and continue to believe that magic will resolve our horrendous financial problems. Not even the magic of tax increases can balance our books.

Jeff

As I recall, there is a provision in the tax code that allows you to voluntarily pay more in taxes. It is rarely used, but if you want to pay more, I bet you can find a way.

But my also bet that you figure you already pay enough in taxes and when you say “raise taxes” it is because you want somebody else to pay for things you want to use more.

Many people lived in poverty years ago because the country was a lot poorer. We have made great organizational and technical advances and general income levels have risen spectacularly in the 20th Century. The poor of today have the buying power of the middle class of fifty years ago.

The short answer is yes I am willing to pay more in taxes to fund SS and medicare. A few tears ago in Missouri we had to throw thousands of old and disable people off medicare and medicaid because of budget short falls. I don’t remember all the figures but to keep these people on medicare it would have cost every person in the state five dollars. Now Only about half the people in the state are taxed so that figure goes to ten dollars. So I thought 10 bucks not bad I’ll give 12. But this state is so tax adverse that these people got no help.

Jeff wrote; “A few tears ago in Missouri we had to throw thousands of old and disable people off medicare and medicaid because of budget short falls.”

That comment is utter and complete nonsense. No one gets “thrown” off Medicare because of the lack of state funds. Question Jeff…who gets your payrole taxes for Medicare, the state or Medicare? To whom do you apply for Medicare benefits, the state or Medicare?

BTW…keep your lousy $12 bucks…that doesn’t even pay the postage on the mail you will receive from Medicare when the time is right for you.

Medicaid is a slightly different story. Check your recent check stub and tell me how much your payroll tax was for Medicaid.

Here is the webpage where anybody can pay additional taxes. They accept direct deposit and credit card.

You give more than $12. In fact, it might be a good idea to give a lot more as an example to others.

Of course it might be more efficient just to adopt some old guy and make it your business to take care of him. And the best way to help everybody in the U.S. is to produce something good and useful and create enough surplus wealth that you can offer somebody a productive job. People who do that are the true heroes. It is easier to be generous with other people’s money, like politicians.

Sorry should have been years not tears and it it was medicare my bad spell check can’t fix everything. Everything else is truth. And the only thing that’s nonsense is the way the redneck inbred north Mississippi republicans in this state vote.

Idiotic comments do not deserve a response.

Sorry I don’t usually try and have a battle of wits with unarmed people.

Apparently someone has grown tall enough to now reach the keyboard on daddies “puter.

Key grafs for those who want to understand the article:

The $862 billion package was divided roughly in thirds among tax cuts, aid to states and the unemployed, and investments in infrastructure, health care and other areas. The first two have delivered most of their boost, but much of the investment spending is moving far more slowly.

Further on:

Underlying the slow pace is a defining tension: Officials want to get money out the door to jolt the economy but want to spend it carefully enough to meet long-term policy aims — and avoid headlines about waste or fraud.

Governments are actually trying to get this right. Isn’t goverment supposed to be incapable of getting (or unwilling to do) anything right?

Administration officials say the stimulus remains on schedule, with 70 percent expected to be spent by Sept. 30. And some economists note that the sluggish economy will still need a boost until 2012, the deadline for spending most stimulus cash.

Okay.

Many of the unspent funds lie in programs portrayed from the outset as true long-term investments, such as $8 billion for high-speed rail, $17 billion for health information technology and $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

But who needs that, long term stimulus? We should blow all that money now and see no effect for the future over time.

“The good news is that there will be a lot of spending in September. You’ll see money being spent in big chunks,” said Matt Groff, who is managing Prince William’s grant. “Although it’s taken a little while to get off the ground, there’ll be less mistakes than there could’ve been if they were quick to approve early on.”

Truth is, big surges in government spending have been done before, for World War Two, For the New Deal, and with less of the technology we now use to keep track of things.

C&J are just piling on the naysaying, but they haven’t really provide a great deal of case-study information indicating that it was impossible, and seing how hundreds of billions have already been put into the economy (not an insignificant amount) and hundreds of billions more will be spent in the next two, I don’t see what the ipso facto case is for their claim. It’s Baghdad Bob rhetoric.

I think we should set a maximum amount that politicians can steal from the stimulous money for protection of personal investments. I also think when politicians list their income, it should include everything, including income from rental property outside the US. I also think that a politician should be able to figure out his own income and taxes before he or she can serve on the banking committee. Just some thoughts…

I think we need a post dealing with whether Obama is really a Muslim in sheep’s clothing. The libs have had a field day with the conspiracy theorists, concerning the bama being a muslim. But some very wierd things are going on in fantacy land, DC. What say you???

I wonder if the Jewish vote likes the hope and change?

Stephen

I am just giving the reality check. Government cannot ramp up spending that fast because it has to be spent BY someone ON something. People need to do these things.

Think of it in the old gardening metaphor. If you want more vegetables, you can plant more and fertilize them better. But you still have to wait until they are ready. And additional fertilizer will not work after a point. In fact, it will cause damage.

This is a practical, not an ideological problem.

In the case of the New Deal, there was a lot of waste AND even at the peak of the New Deal government was spending much less than we are today. It was from a much smaller base. In the case of WWII, we mobilized society. Lots of men with skills as accountants, builders etc were drafted into government service. Even with all that, Harry Truman’s commission found lots of waste.

Surely you are not calling for the mass mobilization of WWII. This downturn is the worst since 1982, but it does not call for that.

Let me explain one more time about the changed economy too. In 1935, you employed hundreds or thousands of men in unskilled work when you built a road. Government could command a road be built, fund it and lots of men could go to work. Today the government cannot get a road planned in less than a couple years (environmental impact, lawyers etc). When they start work, only a few men are hired and they tend to be skilled workers.

You need to update your paradigms. Things have changed.

Beretta

Obama is a liberal and we can criticize his inexperience and his naivety toward the Muslim world. But there has never been any indication that he is a Muslim (not that it should matter if he was). I believe he is seriously mistaken about how he thinks some things work, but I do not question my president’s sincerity or patriotism. Don’t fall into the hatred trap that liberals did under Bush. The said a lot of stupid things about him. We are better than that.

Stephen

I might add that lots of borrowed money has been thrown at the economy. If you want to inject it very quickly and with the least waste and bureaucracy, you might lower they payroll tax. I know that Democrats hate to lower any taxes, but these taxes slow hiring and are paid more by the poor.

He may not be a Muslim, but he seems to bend over backwards to please them and at the same time shows little respect for Christianity. Now concerning, “(not that it should matter if he was)”; do you think he would have been elected if he were a Muslim? He sat under his pastor and mentor, the infamous Rev. Wright, who is also best of friends with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. I have already seen enough about Obama’s past associates, to believe the FBI failed in their background check.

As a Bible believing Christian, I am also sure that when the Anti-Christ is proclaimed as the head of Europe, during a time known as the Tribulation, the world will believe he is on the up and up too. Sorry, but I don’t have your confidence in mankind, especially politicians.

It is not falling into a “hatred trap” to question whether a socialist is bent on the destruction of the country. Being inexperienced or incompetent is one thing, being shrewd in another.

C&J-
I think I did the better job of giving a reality check, since I actually quoted from the article and raised points disputing your claim that government can’t do these things right.

Reality checks aren’t people making broad sweeping claim on a subject. It’s people taking a subject on which somebody’s gone off course, and bringing it back to Earth.

I’ve done plenty of them, in the last six years.

A Republican claims that Democrats are getting 90% of their funding from millionaires, while Republicans are getting 60% of theirs from folks contributing in a much lower range. I investigated. Sure enough, people were taking the percentage share that the parties had of each bracket, and were confusing those percentage shares of the brackets with an overall percentage of the money.

A Republican claims that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are responsible for the housing market crisis and the subsequent economic collapse. I researched, found information that showed that at the time the bubble was really being inflated, those two companies were getting pushed out of the market by the folks who really originated much of the questionable loans. Those companies, indeed, had the advantage of not being held to the high standards the GSEs were.

A Republican claims that the CRA is responsible for the housing market bubble. Turns out the CRA barely applies to most of the top lenders who were building up the bubble, if at all, and CRA subprime loans held up better than average in comparison to the other subsets of subprime lenders.

You see a pattern developing here? You can claim to have wisdom on a subject, but if you haven’t done your homework, then your message is just a reptition of a talking point. It’s too bad that you choose to disregard the studied opinion of many economists that conservatively cite the effects of the stimulus as being worth quite a few points in extra growth, in jobs not lost and jobs gained, in health returned to the economy.

That’s why you go around with that “first stimulus/ second stimulus” bull. You have to make believe that all the good effects are attributable to forces beyond Obama’s control, and everything holding us back is attributable to him.

You’re not doing a reality check, you’re framing a political debate in terms that are strained at best.

Beretta

I don’t believe he would have been elected had he been Muslim. I have the same doubts about Mitt Romney (the most qualified candidate) being elected president because of his Mormon faith. We are a very tolerant nation, but there still are some caveats.

I don’t think Obama is that shrewd. My own take is that he jumped at a brief opportunity, based on a weak Republican field, a general economic problem and the fact that a significant number of people disliked his chief Democratic rival, Hilary Clinton. It was a kind of perfect storm.

But I don’t think he is really up to the job or even likes it very much. I think we read a lot more into his “plans” than he puts into them.

I have confidence in the sense of the American people. I was a little worried a year ago, but the people have really reacted to the Obama push. Our Democracy will take care of him and limit the long-term damage he will do.

Stephen

Government does lots of things right. I say that over and over and over again, but you want to argue with a straw man.

What I say is that government cannot deploy resources over large priorities rapidly or effectively. Government’s role is to create the conditions for long term prosperity. It doesn’t handle the micro-managing well.

Re Freddie and Fannie - many experts disagree with you. And Fannie and Freddy are consuming billions of dollars a month even now. I put links to them in various places. I don’t need to type up what they say.

re the “good effects” the Obama folks predicted unemployment would reach as more than 9% w/o the stimulus. Since the stimulus was enacted, unemployment has consistently been above what they threatened it would be w/o the stimulus. Their answer is that things would have been worse. that is not proof; that is assertion.

There are lots of ways to look at things. You can use percentages or absolute numbers, for example. It depends on what you are trying to do, which is more important.

Re the many economists - Which ones are those? We hear from Paul Krugman and the guys who write for the Huffington Post.

The WSJ does a weekly survey of economists. This is what they said this week.

“Despite the continued challenging conditions, 30 out of 48 economists who answered the question said the economy didn’t need any more fiscal or monetary stimulus. Six economists said more fiscal stimulus was necessary, while five want more monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve and seven said that the economy could use both.”

Here are some numbers on the Infrastructure - the package offered $230 billion to fund an array of projects ranging from road repaving to modernizing the electricity grid to launching new high-speed rail services. Administration officials said when pushing for the program that the money would be targeted at projects that could create jobs quickly.

So far, $182 billion of the infrastructure money has been awarded, though the government has paid out only $66 billion of the total. link

How do those numbers work for you?

SD

“C&J are just piling on the naysaying, but they haven’t really provide a great deal of case-study information indicating that it was impossible…”

So now we need case-study to satisfy you? Are you nuts? Where is your case-study info? Stephen, you need to just back up sometimes and see what you really put on the blog. Some of it is so, well irrational.

You spoke of subprime loans. Your gave some info. Where did that info come from? You are the first one to scream when someone does not show their documentation. You see, Stephen, just because you claim to be an egalitarian, does not put you in a position that every word from your mouth is the absolute truth. Many on this blog have shown that to be the case. When C&J say something you put it in your own little dung heap as if they are ignorant no-nothings. So your little southpaw rants are as you say a lot of rhetoric.

Now for those old folks that were treated in a barbaric manner. Hmmm where did that come from? My grandmother was a typesetter back before 1920. She made $20 a week. She lived happily ever after.

Have any of you read www.jackcampitelli.com? This guy is a blast. His latest rant about Obama and Ben Quale is precious. Who is he? He needs his own syndicated column. You can track him on Twitter I think

“Don’t fall into the hatred trap that liberals did under Bush. The said a lot of stupid things about him. We are better than that.”
Posted by: C&J at August 14, 2010 08:47 PM

Since when C&J? One word, Clinton, how much did the repubs/conservatives spend of taxpayer money to find trumped up charges so they could preach their hatred for him?
During the lead up to the elections many a repub/conservative called Obama a muslim, as if that was illegal or something, amongst many other vile names that bordered on hatred and were definitely misinformation, half truths and outright lies. Perhaps you need to look a little closer at the people you share ideological beliefs with, they seem to have little tolerance for religious freedom, sorta like that Hitler fella that started WWII. Seems to me that if they wouldn’t even consider a Mormon for the office of president it is pretty clear that they are religious hypocrites at best.

The ADL has sided with those that oppose the Mosque in NYC, but many other Jews evidently remember what religious persecution leads to and favor the Mosque.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/jewish-activists-support-_n_673080.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_United_States_Presidents

Tsk tsk beretta religious freedom for only those you choose and the rest of the world be damned? How disgraceful to have such a hissy fit over Muslims and using the Muslim religion in such an insulting way. It is little wonder why so many on the left fight so hard for separation of church and state and easy to see why the founding fathers thought it important enough to include religious freedom in the constitution.

Remember the constitution? Many on the far right use it as a whipping stick for their cause but when it comes time to acknowledge that other people have rights as well they seem to forget all about it.

j2t2

I am against all such intolerance and always respect my presidents. I defended Clinton, Bush & Obama against the extreme accusations. I believe all of the presidents during my lifetimes have acted according to their beliefs to do what they thought best for our country. I also understand that they were all flawed human beings who got things wrong.

That “Hitler fella,” BTW, was a big government of guy. The Nazis regulated everything and everybody. They have almost nothing in common with my ideology. The regulation, rules and revolutionary change the National Socialists advocated are not things I like.

Re Mormons - the opposition would come mostly from Democrats.

j2t2:

Does separation of church and state also include the president throwing in his support of a Muslim mosque after his press sec said it was not right for the president to get involved? And that support for the mosque was given even after a majority of Americans are against it being built on ground zero. Who is in violation of separation of church and state?

C&J:

“Our Democracy will take care of him and limit the long-term damage he will do. “

I hope you are correct, but my experience is 2 steps forward and 1 step back. We are slowly loosings our rights and the Constitution is slowly becoming irrelevant. It will takes years to reverse the damage done, if at all possible.

bertta said..We are slowly loosings our rights and the Constitution is slowly becoming irrelevant. Tell me what rights I really need to know.

“I am against all such intolerance and always respect my presidents…”
I agree with you C&J based upon your writings here. However it is the company you keep that is suspect. It seems your fellow conservatives follow a “guilt by association” ideology when it comes to Obama and others on the left and I was wondering if it applied in this situation.

“That “Hitler fella,” BTW, was a big government of guy.”

Are you suggesting that repubs/conservatives are small government guys? The facts sure don’t back that up do they? If you count rhetoric as deed then yes you could probably make that claim. Hitler also blamed a religious group for all the problems of the world. Hilter had a propaganda machine that was unequaled until the conservative movement brought their onslaught of propaganda to the American people.

“Re Mormons - the opposition would come mostly from Democrats.”

But dems don’t vote in repub primaries do they? I believe most to the left would base their decision on whether to vote for Mitt or not based upon his ideology and whether he could separate church and state while doing his job. Bush wasn’t able to and look at the problems it caused.

Beretta asked “Does separation of church and state also include the president throwing in his support of a Muslim mosque after his press sec said it was not right for the president to get involved?”

“Obama elevated it to a presidential issue Friday without equivocation.While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values. “

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_15770460?source=rss

Yes it does Beretta, you make it sound as if he should be quiet on the issue of religious tolerance while the locals crucify the Muslims based upon their religious beliefs. It became a national issue when future presidential candidates such as Gingrich and Palin started yapping about it. How can you support these guys after seeing them support this blatant violation of the constitution Beretta?

“And that support for the mosque was given even after a majority of Americans are against it being built on ground zero. Who is in violation of separation of church and state?”

“First they came for the …..”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…

The Muslims have every right to build a place of worship 2 blocks from ground zero, period, end of story, not on ground zero as you claim. If it were a christian church being built near ground zero would you have the same sad line? The Constitution gives rights to all, there is no state church. To think that because a majority of people are not in favor of the Mosque the Constitution does not protect the minority in this case is well like I said conservatives use the Constitution as a whipping stick for their own rights but when it comes to others… oh well.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/septemberweb-only/9-17-23.0.html

j2t2

I know you read some of what I write, so I must not be making myself clear. The Republicans during the Bush time screwed up royally by growing spending. Democrats, of course, happily do that all the time. Anyway, it is the spending increases of the Bush years that created the current problem. Republicans helped make government too big.

Unfortunately, all politicians are temped to expand their power and their spending. That is why we have to limit politics as much as we can. It is a constant struggle. It will never end.

re Hitler - I think we need to take the proper lessons from those times, but it is very hard because of the strong emotion.

The Nazis solved the problem of the great depression with a massive intervention and mobilization. They built an excellent highway system. They had a forward looking policy on conservation and environmental protection. They kept the streets clean and famously made the trains run on time. But they accomplished many of these things with big government tools that, IMO, tempted and certainly allowed them to do all those other odious things.

We concentrate on the hatred and the nuttiness of the Nazis. But in order to do real harm, nuts and haters need to have to tools to actualize their terrible dreams. They cannot do all these things on the scale they did w/o the power of a big government behind them. They also need an efficient system that does not have checks and balances on the leader. They need a strong collectivist ethos, where everybody is expected to get on board with the program.

There are all sorts of “precursors” to this kind of thing on both the left and the right. There has to be because these same ingredients, applied differently and in different amounts, are the basis of any successful state. The details of how they are used is what made the difference between a terrible tyranny and a society that delivers property for its citizens.

re Mormons - left wing groups shamelessly attacked Mormons as a group after the gay marriage referendum in California. I have no doubt many leftist groups would demonize them again. They would call it a politician disagreement.

re Romney in general - IMO he is the most intelligent and competent person in the race from either party. Unlike Obama, Romney has real experience. But he lacks some kind of Charisma. I don’t know what it is, but I doubt he will be the nominee and if he manages to get the nomination he won’t win the election.

re the Mosque - they have the RIGHT to do it. But organizers are not truthful when they say it is a way of healing. If they cared about that, they would have been more sensitive to the 911 families. Compare their behavior to that of the Polish nuns and you see the difference between real compassion and the PC variety.

There is even an indication of their motives in the name. Cordoba was an ancient Roman center in southern Spain, but that is not why it is important today. It was also home to one of the most spectacular mosques in the world and was originally built on land violently conquered by Muslims as a way of spreading Islam into their new territories. We (most Americans) tend not to care about those sorts of things, and that is smart, since everybody has some kind of historical ax to grind. Among Muslims, such symbolism is important.

In its litany of supposed “offenses” committed by the West, Al Qaeda mentions the “Andalusia debacle.” Average Americans can be forgiven for not knowing what the heck they are talking about because it doesn’t make a difference to a rational person living in 2010. The Andalusia debacle ended in 1492. That was a long time ago. You might remember that it was the year Columbus landed in the New world. It was also when the Moors were finally defeated Christian Spanish forces. Today we might call it decolonization, as the Spanish took back their country. Some people still hold a grudge.

Jeff
What rights? If you don’t know the answer here is where you can find it. There is a document called The Constitution of the United States of America.

Now if you took the time to study, not just read it, but study it, you would find revelation of things not known before. Too many people from every persuasion talk about segments of the Constitution, but don’t know squat about the balance of the document. Many people twist and turn the document, such as the quite popular separation of church and state. Show me in the Constitution where separation of church and state are mentioned or talked about or a position taken on that theory. It just is not in the Constitution. It is an imaginary theory of which lawyers were very sly in getting a large number of Americans to believe it was part of the Constitution.

Just study the document and let it become a portion of your character. You will be most pleased by it.

A cryptic answer to a very straightforward question what rights are we losing.

Beretta9,

You and I never agree, but on this one, I concur:

I also think that a politician should be able to figure out his own income and taxes before he or she can serve on the banking committee. Just some thoughts…

I’ll add to that, tax code shouldn’t be written unless all the members of Congress do their own taxes.

C&J I don’t take exception to your fondness for Nazi achievement although I do find that the bad out weighs the good in this case, which I am sure you do to. My point was more of actions speak louder than words. Many on the right talk small government but when controlling the reins of government go big and do so in such a manner as to make the government less competent. As an example putting unqualified people in positions they should not have been in such as Brownie. Putting wolves in charge of chickens is another example of the poor leadership shown by those who talk small government. At this point in time why should anyone believe those that still spout the rhetoric of small government yet are unable to actually name the solutions to achieving their small government? Vague assertions of going back to pre-W levels of spending while seemingly forgetting the doubling and then tripling of debt that has occurred during or as a direct result of the small government watch.

I have heard some lefties attack anti gay Mormons but not the whole religion. If they have as you say shamelessly attacked Mormons as a group they are wrong much like those that condemn a Mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero.

Of course those that want the Mosque have the right to do so. When they claim it is a way of healing I wonder for whom the healing is about. But 2 blocks away from the twin towers site in a city like New York doesn’t seem to be such a big deal. One would think that all Muslims were responsible for the actions of Bin Laden and his group. This is like saying no Christian churches can be built within a half mile of the OKC Murrah Federal Center site because one wacko extremist Christian bombed the place. But did anyone complain when federal dollars were used to rebuild a church a few blocks away?

“First United Methodist Church got one of the largest grants — $2.1 million — and, with the help of insurance money and private donations, was able to rebuild and reopen three years later.”

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?s=12345897&clienttype=printable

So the issue to me is more one of religious persecution and cherry picking by many conservatives, as demonstrated by Beretta, on Constitutional protections than anything else C&J.

j2t2;

I love it how liberals just read what they want in statements being made. First of all, Tom Humes is correct, the Constitution does not mention, “separation of church and state”. C&J are also correct, that Muslims have the right to build on any piece of property they purchase and in accordance with state and local zoning laws. But Obama was incorrect in throwing his two cents worth in the mix. If there is such a thing as separation of church and state, then obama violated it, simply because he is a representative of the government. If it was a legal issue and it was a court making the decision, it would be one thing, but the president stuck his nose in where it should not have been. Especially after Robert Gibbs had said just a day or so earlier, that the president had nothing to say on the matter.

After realizing he was in trouble for sticking his nose in a place where it did not belong, he came out the next day, trying to explain what he was trying to say the day before.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-mosque-20100815,0,7219424.story

7 in 10 Americans oppose the building of the mosque at the 911 site:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100812/poll-7-in-10-americans-oppose-ground-zero-mosque/index.html

My question is, why is obama so stupid to run his mouth? Every time he sticks is nose in someone else’s business, he has to retract or explain his statements. Is this ignorance or inexperience, like some believe, or is it arrogance in believing the world MUST have his opinion???

Gergle

Your comparison with the Oklahoma City bombing is not valid. The perpetrators were Christians,but they did not explicitly do the deed in the name of their religion. The attackers on 9/11 killed specifically because of their religion. Some of them actually stupidly believed they would be rewarded in heaven. i agree, of course, that not all Muslims are responsible.

What I think bothers some people (and me) is the qualifications we sometimes hear when Muslim leaders talk about terrorism. Let me explain. I can and will say 100% clearly that the Oklahoma City bombers had no justification for what they did. I will not say that we have to understand the root causes of their grievances or imply that we brought it on ourselves. Muslim leaders are sometimes not that clear.

Re the Nazis - As I wrote, I think we don’t learn the lessons when we don’t look at the whole picture. A lot of what the Nazis promised was attractive and remarkably like the things politicians promise today. This does NOT mean the politician promising is going to end up like Hitler. Hitler was an animal lover and a vegetarian. I don’t think that most people with these characteristics are like Hitler. The Nazis developed the autobahn and the Volkswagen. If you drive your Bug on the highway, you are not supporting Nazis.

re big government - As I said, it is a temptation to all politicians. But we could shrink back to 2000 levels. The deficit is not the issue. Spending is. If we cut spending to 2000 levels and kept the same taxes we have today, the deficit would begin to disappear.

“Many people twist and turn the document, such as the quite popular separation of church and state. Show me in the Constitution where separation of church and state are mentioned or talked about or a position taken on that theory.”

Indeed they do Tom. The wall of separation between church and state is one of the most important rights we have. It is a shame to see those that want to turn us into a theocracy abuse this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

“I love it how liberals just read what they want in statements being made. First of all, Tom Humes is correct, the Constitution does not mention, “separation of church and state”.”

Neither is God nor capitalism but when has that stopped anyone on the right?

“C&J are also correct, that Muslims have the right to build on any piece of property they purchase and in accordance with state and local zoning laws.”

That has been my position all along Beretta. Even when you were making such nonsensical statements such as “I think we need a post dealing with whether Obama is really a Muslim in sheep’s clothing. The libs have had a field day with the conspiracy theorists, concerning the bama being a muslim. But some very wierd things are going on in fantacy land, DC. What say you???”

“But Obama was incorrect in throwing his two cents worth in the mix. If there is such a thing as separation of church and state, then obama violated it, simply because he is a representative of the government.”
No he didn’t he was simply stating a position in the matter after being asked to by the likes of Palin.

“If it was a legal issue and it was a court making the decision, it would be one thing, but the president stuck his nose in where it should not have been.”

Perhaps Beretta the people, in this case Palin and Gingrich, wanted to know the position of the president. Those far right extremist should learn to not politicize everything if they don’t want to embarrass themselves.

Eric said “Your comparison with the Oklahoma City bombing is not valid. The perpetrators were Christians,but they did not explicitly do the deed in the name of their religion.”

Jeez guys the Muslims that want to build the Mosque 2 blocks from the twin towers site didn’t do anything at all, other than practice a religion that has extremist within the religion. Let ye without sin… . This is why the OKC bomber is a valid argument.

C&J,

Regarding that WSJ economist forecasting poll that found a majority of economists did not favor additional stimulus at this time (approximately 60-40), it should be noted that the number advocating additional stimulus in their polliing has risen significantly over the past year. It should also be noted that the majority expressed increasing concern about deflationary influences on the economy and less concern about inflation.

C&J,

I think you were referring to someone else.

C&J-
If you had confidence in the sense of the American people, why have you been filibustering a majority they elected in your party’s stead? Why do you keep on opposing things like the Public Option, which poll in the majority for support? Why, in fact, did Republicans oppose the fact that Obama aimed the tax cut third of the Stimulus mainly at the middle class and poor, and criticize him for a policy that would maintain Bush tax cuts for those making wages below 200,000, while letting them lapse for those above?

What I say is that government cannot deploy resources over large priorities rapidly or effectively.

Cannot? Already has. That is, if you consider having moved 134 billion dollars out the door in investments alone. The president’s policy has already pushed out 364 billion dollars by other means. Maybe having ramped up the Defense budget, created a big drug benefit and pushed out billions in subsidies under your administration has set your sights a little too high on what qualifies as major spending.

The schedule on the spending is to be pushing that stuff through to the end of 2012.

What exactly, and I do mean exactly, is it that makes pushing out that money impossible? What is your basis for saying the stimulus has been inefficient?

Folks can say what they like. I want some objective benchmarks here. I want to see you support your rhetoric with something more than just more rhetoric.

Re Freddie and Fannie - many experts disagree with you.

Fine. Who are these experts, what do they say, what is the mechanism by which Fannie and Freddie bear responsibility for all this?

And how, in the name of all that is good in the world, do they cause a bubble while their own profits and market share drop?

As for your need to type up what they say? Just cut and paste. Use the blockquote tags. I go through the effort to provide my sources, because I feel that adds to my credibility, makes my argument stronger, and discourages me from using weak sources to base my argument on.

re the “good effects” the Obama folks predicted unemployment would reach as more than 9% w/o the stimulus.

Your logic works like this: Obama predicted things would get only this bad, yet they got worse under his stimulus. You insist this means that the stimulus hurt, or at least didn’t help.

There’s another alternative, one born out by the evidence: the recession, the failure of the economy was greater than it was thought.

When the stimulus plan was signed into law, the The U3 unemployment rate was 8.2% It was 7.7% when Obama started building the plan in January. Well, let’s give the stimulus three months to start, so look at May and June’s rates: 9.4%, 9.5%

So, without the stimulus even being in play, unemployment got that bad. U3 unemployment bottoms out at 10.1% in October 2009.

During the course of the first three months after Obama signs the stimulus, jobs drop by about one and a half million. Was this a sudden development after the stimulus program? No. There wasn’t a positive month for job growth for all of 2008, and it ramped up from 10,000 jobs lost at the first of the year, to 200,000 jobs lost a month in the middle of the year, to 500-700,000 jobs lost a month by the time he’s elected and in transition.

The month he’s inaugurated, the nation loses 779,000 jobs. That is what Obama’s having to fight. That’s what Obama has to put the brakes on with all his policies.

What stops the momentum? All your other measures, they start in October 2008. What stops the downward trend in jobs?

It could be argued that the Stimulus was insufficient, but ineffective? The question is why, all of a sudden, our fortunes suddenly start turning around in Summer of 2009, about the time when the stimulus began?

Re the many economists - Which ones are those? We hear from Paul Krugman and the guys who write for the Huffington Post.

Well, your own people at the WSJ said it made an improvement, for what it’s worth.

It matters, though, which economists the Wall Street Journal asks, and from which school. The distinction I’ve seen noted was one between those who deal in practical economics, and those who deal in market theory, with the practical economists more supportive of the measures.

Economic theories can blind folks to economic realities. Folks in the Hoover Administration kept on trying to fight the economic downturn with tax cuts and then tried the austerity route at the end of his administration. They kept on trying to treat it like an inflationary crisis, and this only helped to make a bad situation worse.

That is how Republicans are reacting right now. That is their game plan going into this November. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that what would be good to cool down an overly inflating economy, that is, one where the money supply is growing too fast, is exactly the opposite of what one should do when the economy is in deflationary or near-deflationary status, and for reasons that should be obvious: A deflationary economy is one that has less money than it needs to maintain jobs, make investments, and reward investments.

How does it help such a cash-strapped economy to remove more money, or try and wring more money out of it? The answer is, it doesn’t. Until the economy makes the transition back to normal inflationary economics, anti-inflationary measures are worse than useless, not only even if they are effective, but especially if they are effective.

How do those numbers work for you?

I’ve already highlighted good reasons why the stimulus money isn’t going out faster, from your own article, no less.

But also, if the Stimulus has been effective so far, it’s been effective at less than full strength. If that much stimulus is good for the economy, how much better will it be as more money gets spent?

tom humes-

So now we need case-study to satisfy you?

Well, you can quote from a case study, or at least link to an article that serves the same general purpose: Illustrating how policy behaves in the real world with some detail.

If I’m demanding much, it’s because you folks are asking a lot based on little information.

Are you nuts?

Nope.

Stephen, you need to just back up sometimes and see what you really put on the blog.

Well, funny you say that, because you say this:

You spoke of subprime loans. Your gave some info. Where did that info come from?

Follow me to my next post.

The answer to your first question is, I’m very well aware of what I post. I often take great care in finding sources.

Here is my source on Fannie and Freddie.

And here’s the article I wrote.

You see, Stephen, just because you claim to be an egalitarian, does not put you in a position that every word from your mouth is the absolute truth.

Well, it doesn’t. That’s why I rely on sources as much as I do. I would post more links, if I could, but an anti-spam function on this site’s comment engine causes my posts to get lost if I post more than three links.

If I know something to be true, though, I’m not one to stay quiet when somebody makes a claim that relies on erroneous facts to be true. If I know you’re wrong, I won’t mince words. As I hate to be embarrassed or humiliated, though, I also don’t like to make such strong statements without backup.

As a rule, I want my strong rhetoric backed by strong facts, primary facts if I can get them. Rhetoric backed only by rhetoric is the logical equivalent of paying your mortgage with your credit card. You still have to back yourself up at some point, and the Republican Party, in my opinion, has a terrible record of just making stuff up.

As for how your grandmother lived? You could make twenty dollars a week and eat in those days. Try to pull the rest of us back to such wages, and essentially you have to yank everybody’s wages down, everybody’s consumption, everybody’s assets and investments down to match.

Would that work out too well? Just look around you. You are looking at the results of the country trying to adjust to a smaller cashflow.

Stephen

I also credit the Fed with improving the economy, as the WSJ say. As you know, I call that the first stimulus. I even think the stimulus worked to some extent. It just cost too much and we don’t need more of it.

The government moved a lot of money out the door. We will see what they got for it all.

re filibustering - Democrats did it too. It is the prerogative of the organization. If Republicans win a majority in November, I am sure you will call for the Democrats to just go along, right?

Re unemployment - Obama’s folks predicted it would not go much above 8%. You can do whatever figures you want now. The fact is the OBAMA analysis gave us those other numbers.

We will get to see how well the stimulus works soon. Democrats have to show results. Back in 2008 the people blamed Bush. In 2012 they will blame Obama.

One question, a serious one, some people want to stimulate more. What predictions do they make if we do and if we don’t stimulate. Surely they must have some kind of end state in mind when they advocate spending more than ever before.

J2t2:

So the term “separation of church and state” does not really exist in the Constitution, but the principle does? The law actually says the government shall no force people to join a certain religion, or establish a certain religion, nor fund a certain religion. Does that also include promoting a certain religion and if so, is obama guilty of promoting the Muslim religion?

“Perhaps Beretta the people, in this case Palin and Gingrich, wanted to know the position of the president. Those far right extremist should learn to not politicize everything if they don’t want to embarrass themselves.”

I don’t believe Palin or Gingrich have anything to do with obama’s decision to let everyone know his position. He let everyone know his position simply because he can and is arrogant enough to believe he MUST let them know. In any case, after 3 days and 3 explanations, he is still trying to tell the American people what he meant, lol. I bet he wishes he had kept his mouth shut. This Biden style gaff will cost the dems more votes in Nov.

Stephen, you are still hung up on this majority thing, aren’t you. The dems won, but that doesn’t mean everyone is going to roll over for every socialist hair brained idea that comes out of the left. I hope you remember your attitude about the majority in November. I fear you will be in the miority and I hope you support the majority as much then as you do now…

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “If I know something to be true, though, I’m not one to stay quiet when somebody makes a claim that relies on erroneous facts to be true.”

I could sum up Mr. Daugherty’s entire post above by simply writing…my facts are better than your facts.

Facts are only revelant if one has the intelligence to properly apply them to the present and future. Facts are merely historical accounting. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written to explain the great depression. Each book will use facts to explain what happened. And yet, with all these facts, there is still great disagreement today, decades later, about the causes and what worked and what didn’t work.

Investors, armed with facts, place huge sums into market positions based how they interpret those facts. They don’t all win. Did the person who lost money have his/her facts wrong?

I most enjoy the posts on this blog that reveal original thought. Since we all have a different view of reality and history, the insights gained from another’s experience can be a valuable learning tool.

Since none of us is infallible we learn from each others mistakes and success. For me, merely finding a few facts to bolster my position is not indicitive of much thought and certainly doesn’t require much intelligence.

While Mr. Daugherty may revel in having the best facts, truest facts, most facts or “strong facts, primary facts if I can get them…” I will favor and read those who write from the head and heart.

Don’t you just love the way some roll out the constitution when it suits there needs then roll it back up if it doesn’t.

If one reads of the considerable government support of religion in the early days of our republic it would be difficult to argue that the founders were unaware of what they wrote into our constitution and thereby were violating it by their actions.

I get to go to church on Sundays. I don’t have to, I just love to. So I got in here a little late, but that is ok with me.

j2t2
Wiki is not the Constitution nor is it anywhere near explaining the Constitution nor interpreting the Constitution. Very poor reference. The Constitution is the only reference when speaking as we do here.

The United States Constitution

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

That is pretty simple language. No law establishing a state religion nor not allowing anybody to exercise their choice of religion. I don’t know what version you have of the Constitution, but I have a copy of the Constitution as it is force today on August 15, 2010 in the year of our Lord.

Both sides do that quite often don’t they Jeff. Or is it Democrats wouldn’t think of doing that. LOLOLOLOL

tom, I am with you. Regular church attendence for me is a wonderful way to start the week and my faith is meaningful in every aspect of my daily life. The joy of faith is impossible for unbelievers to understand.

Mag.. Yes they do!

There is a simple argument that makes the case that our federal government does support religion today in meaningful ways. It is a fact that recognized religious organizations pay no federal or state taxes. Our pledge still legally reads…”one nation, under God…” and our paper money still has the declaration, “In God We Trust”. And, many of our federal buildings depict, in various ways, religious figures.

C&J-
Yes, Democrats also filibustered. And at their worst, they did it a little over half as much as the Republicans did it in the last Congress alone. You’ve taken everything you said was wrong when we did it, and done it with greater enthusiasm.

I would like the Democrats in the Senate to be more cooperative than your people have been, more constructive, more willing to offer alternatives instead of just shooting them down. I won’t tell them to just go along, but I would tell them to seek the majority again by positive behavior, and a compelling message based on the Republican majorities actions.

You know, what I said the last time. I believe in respecting the authority of those offices, and the rule of the majority.

But let’s be realistic. What do you think the Democrat’s response to the Republicans will be? What will you think when you’re on the receiving end of this particular “prerogative of the organization?” Once, I agreed with the position of keeping it, when I felt it was a rational procedure to give a majority pause, to prompt negotiation. Republicans, though, have made it into a roadblock for legislative action, against the judgment of the voters.

Re unemployment - Obama’s folks predicted it would not go much above 8%. You can do whatever figures you want now. The fact is the OBAMA analysis gave us those other numbers.

They predicted it back in January, early February. It was the severity of the crisis, not the ineffectiveness of the stimulus that overtook that figure.

We will get to see how well the stimulus works soon. Democrats have to show results. Back in 2008 the people blamed Bush. In 2012 they will blame Obama.

You actually think that? What Obama might get blamed for is a slow recovery, the way things are going. But Bush will get the blame for the recession. History will not change for the convenience of a GOP that would like to forget that Bush’s policies were involvedin the downturn.

If we don’t stimulate, what we might see is endless economic weakness, going on into the next few decades. Something like Japan, where a similar real-estate collapse crippled the economy, and continues to cripple it to this day. At the very least, we have a double-dip recession as a possibility.

Beretta9-
It doesn’t exist in text, but you’d have to really fail to read the text for its meaning to not see the concept at work. The First Amendment religion clause basically forbids both negative and positive interventions in religion. The constitution itself forbids religious tests; that is, the requirement that a person must swear to be part of a church approved by the government in order to serve as an official.

Obama’s not advocating the Mosque. His statement was that we must respect people’s first Amendment freedoms. On that count, he has not changed. That’s the meat of his remarks, so all the rest is pretty much irrelevant.

As for being hung up on that majority thing? Well, ****, I guess I am. Maybe I just happen to like Democracy. You know, folks did elect those folks you think are socialists. They elected them despite so much of the right’s hair-on-end rhetoric about what socialists they were all going to be.

If I am in the minority after this election, so be it. Your party, though, majority or not, still has the legacy of the last decade to contend with. I don’t have much faith that the party that’s spent the last year screaming with its hair on fire about Death Panels and Terror Babies will show the kind of responsibility and hard-work ethic people are looking for.

Even after the decade of disaster, your people are still letting the far-right political hacks push the policy. It was your undoing in 2006, and it will be your undoing again. It is just a matter of when. I would prefer it be in the next election, but if it’s 2012, so be it, the reckoning will come.

Royal Flush-

I could sum up Mr. Daugherty’s entire post above by simply writing…my facts are better than your facts.

Well, are they?

Facts are always relevant. Those who argue points without arguing facts are building castles in the air. The human imagination has boundless capacity to spin off into na-na land. Facts are what force us to consider the actual truth value of a given claim.

If you think assessing the truth of a claim is unnecessary, just make sure everybody on this blog knows that is your position.

Yes, there are plenty of claims as to what caused the Great Depression. There are also plenty of facts to go through to filter the false claims from the true. Some people will still go through and make certain claims anyways, but they do that at the risk of their credibility.

It takes time to think through things, and folks are constantly bringing new ideas and insights to the table, and where true, rational, skeptical thought is applied, there is also a process going on of testing those ideas and insights against what is actually recorded in history.

If we don’t do this, then everything becomes solipcism and sophistry, as people just make up any damn argument that suits their purpose or agenda.

Citing facts is about keeping people honest, and forcing folks to face facts they may not have known or properly considered.

None of us is infallible. That is why we have to exercise such discipline.

As for whether I write from the head and heart?

I don’t think you would really understand how relentless my brain can be about flat or superficial things. What depresses me, in the course of a day, is the thought of endlessly putting out opinion pieces, endlessly saying the same things, endlessly passing an unprovable point back and forth with a Republican/Conservative counterpart.

In my mind, there have to be points at which we can say that it’s more than just a matter of personal preference, that there are policies and actions that are better than the other choices and options available, that there are real decisions to be made, and that we can measure the consequences to determine whether we were right.

To me, that is vastly preferable to the kind of thinking that simply takes a pass on determining the right and wrong of these often tough questions. That’s where my head and heart is.

Royal Flush-
I hate to tell you this, but the “under God” and “In God we Trust” were put in the pledge and on the money in the mid-fifties at the urging of groups trying to push Christianity in response to the threat of Communism.

And really, since then, has the effect been a more religious nation? Not really. Dollars and classroom pledges don’t make believers out of people.

Plus, there’s another angle you might want to consider:

My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis — in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.”

So wrote Theodore Roosevelt to a friend.

I think what folks take on of their own free will, they value more than what is imposed. I think both America and Christianity would do just fine with those words gone from the pledge and off our money. I have faith in the strength of both America and its religions to support themselves.

C&J,

“I also credit the Fed with improving the economy, as the WSJ say. As you know, I call that the first stimulus.”

One more time, the first stimulus of this recession was in February of 2008 and was proposed by Bush and passed with the support of the Democratic majority. It was a 150 billion dollar tax rebate. It was not enough.

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “Those who argue points without arguing facts are building castles in the air.”

Really, how can a “fact” be arguable? It either is or isn’t a fact. Sorry to hear from your comment that you’re depressed at having to constantly correct us.

I’m sure it is depressing when one must dig for just the right “facts” to support a viewpoint while knowing that others find “facts” stating just the opposite. The problem is with the word “fact”. It has lost all meaning for many. And, I would ask, do you test the validity of every “fact” you quote or do you just take someone’s word for it?

Many of the facts quoted on this blog are truly only someone’s opinion. If agreeable, it becomes a fact. My fact then becomes a lie in another’s opinion.

For example, If I were to write…”Taxes are too high”, would that be a fact? I could easily find statistics and historical evidence to prove my opinion, but that wouldn’t make it a fact at this moment in time.

For example, if you were to write…”The new health care bill will lower the nation’s health care costs”, would that be a fact? You could easily find support for your opinion but that wouldn’t make it a fact.

When politicians you favor make promises do you consider them to be making factual statements? When a democrat says we will balance the budget, do you consider that a fact?

I believe some have a problem distinguishing between fact and evidence. For example, it is a fact “people lie”. Mr. Daugherty is a person. Therefore, Mr Daugherty is a liar. There is no evidence that you are a liar. There is only evidence that you are a person by virtue of being able to post on this site.

It should have occurred to you by now that the reason there is no settled and agree upon conclusion about the causes and lengthy continuation of the great depression is that a mere collection of facts collected over an extended period of time explain nothing by themselves.

It is then the assembling of innumerable facts over a period of time subjected to analysis, and invariably influenced by the author, that leads to opinion. And, there are thousands of opinions about the great depression all based on some facts or another.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I hate to tell you this, but the “under God” and “In God we Trust” were put in the pledge and on the money in the mid-fifties at the urging of groups trying to push Christianity in response to the threat of Communism.”

I love to tell you this, so far it’s not unconstitutional.

Stephen

My father was born in 1921. I have a silver dollar from the year of his birth. On the front it says, “In God we Trust”.

I recall that Abe Lincoln put this on our coins. That was back in 1864 when Godless communism was just a stupid idea in crazy Karl’s little brain.

Rich

The one that had good effect was what they Fed and government did in fall 2008.

Stimulus work, but not much.

Gee Stephen I have a 1939 Mercury Head Dime that has In God We Trust stamped on it. How could that be if it wasn’t started until the 50’s?

SD

I despise a democracy form of government. I will take a republican form of government over a democracy anytime. Republican here is not political party.

A democracy is self defeating and is what so many politicans and bureaucrats, czars, activists, etc. are trying to turn this country into. There are others who are southpaws that would rather see a socialist form of government. Then those totalitarians who think we should have the government do everything for us and to us as they see fit to do.

This nation was founded as a republic and it should go back to that concept.

Go ahead SD write your next essay.

Stephen said; “If I am in the minority after this election, so be it.”

Does that mean you are going to submit the majority or are you going to call you congressman and senators and tell them to block the majority republicans?

Are you talking about the decade of disaster that started with 3000 Americans dying on 9/11? Yes, I can understand that as a disaster.

Stephen also said:

“Royal Flush-
I hate to tell you this, but the “under God” and “In God we Trust” were put in the pledge and on the money in the mid-fifties at the urging of groups trying to push Christianity in response to the threat of Communism.”

Now, Stephen, don’t you feel stupid, you got your FACTS WRONG…again

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHIt9JRwyOIxxcNucgE_z7JR9I4AD9HFQ9DG0

“German mosque used by Sept. 11 attackers shut down
(AP) – 6 days ago

BERLIN — German authorities say they have closed a Hamburg mosque used by the Sept. 11 attackers as a meeting place before they moved to the United States.

A statement by Hamburg officials says the Taiba mosque was shut down and its cultural association was banned on Monday.

The prayer house, formerly known as al-Quds mosque, used to be a meeting and recruiting point for some of the Sept. 11 attackers.

Weekly news magazine Focus cites a report by a local intelligence agency branch in saying the mosque has again become the city’s “main center of attraction for the jihad scene.” It says some members who belonged to the Taiba group and prayed at the mosque have moved on to a radical training camp in Uzbekistan.

Officials could not immediately be reached for comment.”

Are there any liberals on FB who can guarantee a Manhattan mosque would not be used for the same purpose?

Those evil anti-religious Germans…

MAG,

“Gee Stephen I have a 1939 Mercury Head Dime that has In God We Trust stamped on it. How could that be if it wasn’t started until the 50’s?”

Look it up. Paper money didn’t have “In God We Trust” on it until the late ’50s and ’60s.

In God We Trust, which had been on, and off coins since the 1860s, became the motto replacing E Pluribus Unum in 1956.

C&J,

“I recall that Abe Lincoln put this on our coins.”

In 1864 Congress passed the “Coinage Act”. I have looked and haven’t been able to find anything that would indicate that Lincoln signed the act into law.
Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury at that time was authorized by the act to have a coin, the two cent piece, designed with the saying on it. Chase was the person that OK’ed the saying.

Rocky

“Now, Stephen, don’t you feel stupid, you got your FACTS WRONG…again”

Clearly the most ignorant thing I have ever read here.

Rocky

“That is pretty simple language. No law establishing a state religion nor not allowing anybody to exercise their choice of religion.”

Well tom you can argue all you want but where did you see the word “state” in the first amendment?

“I don’t know what version you have of the Constitution, but I have a copy of the Constitution as it is force today on August 15, 2010 in the year of our Lord.”

I’m pretty sure we all have a current version Tom, it is how we keep adding words to it that do not exist in the constitution that allows for one to interpret it as they choose. That is why we have a SCOTUS to tell us what applies and what doesn’t. So the wiki link has taken references from many different sources and has done a darned good job IMHO. Now they may screw up as they did in applying the 14th amendment to corporations but it is still the law of the land we use today, like it or not.

The United States one-dollar bill ($1) is the most common denomination of US currency. The first president, George Washington, painted by Gilbert Stuart, is currently featured on the obverse, while the Great Seal of the United States is featured on the reverse. The one-dollar bill has the second oldest design of all U.S. currency currently being produced, after the two-dollar bill. The obverse seen today debuted in 1963 when the $1 bill first became a Federal Reserve Note.

The inclusion of “In God We Trust” on all currency was required by law in 1955. The national motto first appeared on paper money in 1957.

An individual dollar bill is also less formally known as a one, a single or a bone.[1]

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing says the average life of a $1 bill in circulation is 21 months before it is replaced due to wear. Approximately 45% of all U.S. currency produced today are one-dollar bills.[2]

For a number of years I collected US currency that were backed by silver. They were known as Silver Certificates and the value was backed by silver. Imagine that, currency that actually had a deposit of a valuable metal backing it. I finally sold them to a collector and made a few bucks.

Now, our money is backed by….NOTHING. Just the faith in the government. Is that worth much today? It’s kind of like the lock box containing all the reserves to fund Social Security. Somehow, the bill in my pocket based upon faith is not quite as comforting as the old silver certificates.

j2t2
I did not quote the Constitution using the word “state”. Another matter of reading something simply. Ho Hum!!

A prolonged recession in the U.S. and Europe is very beneficial to the emerging markets at this time. Another year of it would be nice.

Rocky and Jeff

Thanks for the details. What I know for sure is that a American dollar coin from 1921 says “in God we trust” on the front. This motto may have been on and off, but it was not thought up only as an attack on communism.

Royal Flush-
You should throw in a “what is truth?” question in there somewhere.

Seriously, Reality generates facts as a matter of course. Events unfold, leave evidence, and influence the next effects in line.

Some matters are unverifiable. Others are not. Where we can determine the truth of claims, we should. That keeps us honest, and keeps those talking to us honest.

What’s the alternative, though, if we don’t start with the facts, start with the verifiable? Feelings and Rhetoric. Both of which are very malleable, regardless of what the truth is. If you want to put yourself in a position where you’re constantly being stampeded around, rather than taking some power to yourself to think for yourself and decide for yourself, be my guest. But for my part, the greatest freedom belongs to a person, who when told he doesn’t have a better choice by a manipulative politician, knows he does anyway.

The framers believed in a Republic where people could debate truths, and not merely get torn this way or that by passions

I do not believe in the kind of nihilism towards the facts that you offer here. They may not be the whole crop of our decision making, but facts are the soil from which good decision-making by necessity must spring.

MAG, C&J-
The motto’s been around for some time, and has, at various times shown up on coins. It has, though, become very strongly associated with our paper currency, and that is what I refer to.

Personally, I think it’s of little consequence. My hair isn’t on fire for its removal, but I can’t see how much good it’s really done

tom humes-
This is a democratic republic, and was designed as such. Your argument makes me sad. You so poorly understand what most Democrats want, so blindly disparage our values.

People throw words like Socialism and totalitarian at you, they make convoluted arguments in order to cover for the fact that they’re betraying part of the fundamental contract of our government. I mean, hell, wasn’t it Lincoln who talked about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? That’s a textbook definition of Democracy.

You folks talk about having great love for the constitution, but seem to be at odds with it, much of the time, calling for its amendment so you can stick school prayer back in the curriculum, ban flag burning, end birthright citizenship, curb religious liberties when somebody very remotely related to and publically opposed to the terrorists decides to build a mosque a couple blocks away from Ground Zero.

I am not so dissatisfied. I believe we can work with what we already have. In this, ironically enough, I am more conservative, more careful, than you and many on the Right.

As for writing my next essay? Ooooh. That’s such a cut. Oh, look over there! That commentor’s writing an essay for his response!

Essays allow the expression of complete thoughts, a thorough accounting of one’s reasons for what one thinks, rather than just an off the cuff blurb. Do I write essays? Very well, I do. I contain multitudes! ;-)

Beretta9-
Did I get my facts wrong? It would help us if you explained that claim in greater detail that just stating your claim.

As for the Germans? That’s their country, not ours. I would also submit that while they can shut down a Mosque, they aren’t necessarily going to shut down what those people were doing, or saying. You assume that supressing their religious rights would quell their terrorist sympathies. That strikes me as a naive position to take. Were you in their shoes and hated the West, would you feel discouraged to take violent action or encouraged?

You should realize that the most important element of terrorist indoctrination is the small group dynamic that allows them to take otherwise reasonable, intelligent folks, often middle class or better, educated, and tunnel them into believing that they must do these things.

The reality is, those people, once inside that group, will not react as normal to society’s cracking down on them. Simply closing the mosque will only shunt them to some other location or organization that will nurture their increasingly closed-off perspective on the world.

The most successful deprogramming efforts for Jihadis relies on getting people back to their families, back to their society. When they are drawn back to that, you can bring such loyalties, such group dynamics into play.

If it is successful, the Park 51 community center will help ally people to the larger society. It won’t be there to encourage folks to Jihad, rather to encourage folks to interact peacefully, and follow the lead of Democracy.

Stephen, I don’t even know where to begin. I think you write, just to write, and don’t really know what you are saying.

The Germans shut down the Mosque because it was a training center for terrorists. It doesn’t take much research to find out that most terrorist recruiting and training centers are Mosques.

You state:

“You should realize that the most important element of terrorist indoctrination is the small group dynamic that allows them to take otherwise reasonable, intelligent folks, often middle class or better, educated, and tunnel them into believing that they must do these things.”

And what do you think these Mosques are, but the very small dynamic groups of which you speak. Mosques have been proven to be hideouts for weapons, and training centers simply because they are religious centers and not subject to search and seizure.

“Simply closing the mosque will only shunt them to some other location or organization that will nurture their increasingly closed-off perspective on the world.”

Well, at least it will keep them out of downtown Manhattan. How would you feel, if you support this Mosque, and during the course of time, an attack is launched against NY from this Mosque. And as a result, thousands of Americans die, is it worth that risk.

Lastly, you say:

“The most successful deprogramming efforts for Jihadis relies on getting people back to their families, back to their society. When they are drawn back to that, you can bring such loyalties, such group dynamics into play.

If it is successful, the Park 51 community center will help ally people to the larger society. It won’t be there to encourage folks to Jihad, rather to encourage folks to interact peacefully, and follow the lead of Democracy.”

I know this is a dumb question, but could you provide some evidence that there have ever been successful deprogramming of terrorists??? I have never personally heard of these radical terrorists ever being deprogrammed…

SD

“You folks talk about having great love for the constitution, but seem to be at odds with it, much of the time, calling for its amendment so you can stick school prayer back in the curriculum, ban flag burning, end birthright citizenship, curb religious liberties when somebody very remotely related to and publically opposed to the terrorists decides to build a mosque a couple blocks away from Ground Zero.”

Lumping people together under one response to a single individual is abusive.

You nor anybody else has ever heard me advocate what you say above. Frankly, you are so far out of line here that your credibility is shot, period. As usual no documentation for what I stand for, just stereotype him into some opposition group for today. Stephen, to know a person well you must know his heart. You do not know my heart nor are you close to understanding me. The sadness is not on my shoulders.

Now how much do you know about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf? What do you know about ISNA? What do you know about CAIR? What do you know about MSU? What do you know MPAC? What do you know about Muslim Brotherhood? The single common denominator here is that they are all tied to terrorist activity. Let them build where they want to. The Mormons can, The Jehovah’s Witness can. The Bretheren can. The Baptists can. The Assemblies of God can. The Catholics can. And so on. I think it is ironic that Greg Gutfeld wants build a gay bar next door to the site. Are the Islamists going to show tolerance for their gay members?
We let Fred Phelps do his dirt so why not practice this all-inclusive brotherhood of dirt haulers and include those who want to practice Sharia Law. Of course, Stephen, with your vast knowledge and understanding, you really do know what Sharia Law is about, don’t you? Just don’t forget that in the near future everyone shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. You can’t deny that without serious complications to your soul.

Beretta9-
You don’t know where to begin, so you start with a cliched argument starter.

Hmmm. ;-)

I am aware of why the Germans shut it down. But the question is not whether al-Qaeda recruits out of mosques, but whose mosques, out of how many?

If the mosques were more obvious, if the terrorists were holding their meetings out in public, that would be one thing. But of course they don’t do that, because people would tell the authorities if a meeting of people were doing that.

No, the group is smaller than the mosque. Here’s another thing that showed up in my readings: these people don’t even necessarily have to be good Muslims!

The group could go from mosque to mosque, if they are not caught, and as impinging on people’s religious rights is naturally both troublesome and against modern principles, that won’t happen consistently enough. And if we did get them all, what then? They’d go underground, meet in houses, I’d bet.

The reality of terrorism is you simply get a guy, and make his whole life about his new friends, and not shaming himself in front of them. You don’t need him to be smart or dumb, married or single, rich or poor, pious or secular- you just need somebody you can manipulate into joining the cause, and then manipulate into making the ultimate act of devotion to it. You lead them to refuse all other options until there’s nothing left of them except the will to complete the mission.

Well, at least it will keep them out of downtown Manhattan. How would you feel, if you support this Mosque, and during the course of time, an attack is launched against NY from this Mosque. And as a result, thousands of Americans die, is it worth that risk.

That’s the thing, isn’t it? What is the risk? The guy is neither Shia nor Sunni, but Sufi. Sufis are not that well allied with any of the violent movements of either sect. Al Qaeda’s folks would probably not see him as much of a Muslim. He’s on record as opposing the Terrorists and what they did.

You simply hear the word Mosque, and you instantly assume that every mosque is a hive of scum and villainy. Most are no such thing. This kind of bigotry has no place in discussions of security. A mosque is not a security threat, in and of itself.

I know this is a dumb question, but could you provide some evidence that there have ever been successful deprogramming of terrorists??? I have never personally heard of these radical terrorists ever being deprogrammed…

Well, the Saudis are giving it a good try.

And our best interrogators use religious appeals to help suspects open up:

During training, we were told that religion was a taboo subject because of the types of illegal activities that had occurred at Guantánamo Bay. I disagreed and I often discussed religion with my detainees. I frequently brought my own copy of the Quran into the interrogation booth and asked religious questions, always treating Islam with respect. I’ve read the Quran even though I’m not Muslim. I found my detainees, even high level imams, to be very open to my inquiries. In this way I showed them that I respected their religion and their beliefs and it changed their attitudes towards me and helped me to win their trust. One of our great strengths as Americans is our religious tolerance, a founding principle of our country, and we should use that strength in the interrogation booth to help build rapport with detainees and foster cooperation. As I told my team in Iraq, the things that make you a good American are the same things that will make you a good interrogator.

It is possible to get terrorists to see the error of their ways. I wouldn’t say it’s easy most of the time, but you can do it. We got plenty of actionable intelligence doing that, among other things.

tom humes-

Lumping people together under one response to a single individual is abusive.

Well, then what is your individual response to this? What are your reactions when you see Republicans and others on the Right pushing these ideas?

And isn’t lumping people together exactly what folks are doing when they take innocent Muslims like the Imam of this project, and use the spectre of 9/11’s radical extremist behavior to force them to build further away?

As for my credibility? Well, if I have offended you by associating the stated beliefs of some on the right with you, then I beg your pardon. But if you care about your credibility, look at what you write afterwards, and consider that by your last paragraph, you strain yours.

When and if people confess Jesus as lord, it will be by God’s grace and their own free will. It will also be easier to get people to listen to you who you haven’t pitted against you.

Everybody’s got their embarassments, got their extremists. I have no desire, even though I think some of their beliefs could cause great harm if they spread, to get in their way. Why? Because I think the greatest and best defense we have against extremists is a free market of ideas that holds them accountable for what they say, do and espouse. If all you do is simply blast people for their imperfections, at best you will alienate them, and at worse they’ll be blasting right back.

I will tend to my soul, and you can tend to yours. How they tend to theirs is not my affair. Their relationship with God is between them and God. If they ask, I will bear witness. Heck, I might volunteer that without asking. But I will neither assume the worst of these people, nor try and force my religion on them. They would not be bending their knee to God, but to me, and those with me, and God would know the difference.

A lot of words to just deny the power and omnipotence of Jesus Christ.

I stated a warning to those who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, and then you twisted it to what you wanted it to say. I expect that from you, as that is part of the consistency that you write with.