By varying margins both parties are blamed but the bottom line of the poll seems to be...stop spending! Looks like it was a pretty short honeymoon with the voters and both Congress and the President seem to face an uphill battle to convince voters they have their interests at heart from here on out. Just a couple of what should be alarming tidbits for politicians of all flavors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

"Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date."

And this would be at a time pre-9/11.

"Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package."

Take the hint Madam Speaker.

"There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993."

Take the hint Mr. President.

"While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year."

Take the hint every politician in Washington. Start playing nice together and get something accomplished.

"Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree."

Thank goodness for that. But some in power will still not listen.

"Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner."

And it won't get any better for them until they come up with some solid plans and find a way to broadcast them without them being ridiculed in the process. Just blaming the other side is what everyone expects of both parties anymore so if the GOP is to gain any traction they have to decide to ignore the cheap shots and put out a decent plan to help all Americans. Maybe, just maybe, Americans are coming to their senses and will be more receptive to cuts in government spending. I don't think they are quite there yet but the idea is forming.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): Take the hint every politician in Washington. Start playing nice together and get something accomplished.

This would be good, but if it doesn't happen what will American citizens do about it? Nothing...

What can the American people do about it? Nothing...

Vote for the other party next election? Exact same thing, different colours.

Not much you can do in two party pseudo dictatorship.

"Stop spending". Hmmm.

Oh, you mean like the fiscal responsibility we had under Ronald Reagan? (pile up mounds of debt to expand the military). Under President Bush 43? (Piling up mounds of debt on EVERYTHING).

Yes, that's what got us into this debt, DXing, I agree. But the problem is, with the lack of regulations that we've had for the past 8 years, the economy has all but stopped functioning-credit was frozen; jobs being lost in droves-you get the drift. What may be more important than not spending right at this moment, is getting the economy moving again, and just maybe it needs a big kick in the ass like this. I certainly don't think another stimulus is needed, but I do think getting the economy moving, and creating some jobs has to come first right now.

A note about regulation here, DXing. Why are so many conservatives mad at Bernard Madoff? He's a poster child for what conservatives wanted in the market-no regulations! He was able to do what he did because of no oversight and no regulation. And now, Republicans are yelling "no regulations!" even louder! Interesting.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Oh, you mean like the fiscal responsibility we had under Ronald Reagan? (pile up mounds of debt to expand the military). Under President Bush 43? (Piling up mounds of debt on EVERYTHING).

That should be mentioned more but what the GOP desires more than anything is power and when they have it they let the most powerful do what they want which is why they are so good at the political game and not so great at governing. By all standards the only conservative thing Bush brought was tax cuts and the rest of their actions made him look like he was left of the dems.

For 6 years the GOP controlled congress and senate were a rubber stamp for Bush and never challenged him and that also applies to the democrats as well in 07 and 08. If Obama tries anything that the democrats in congress or the senate don't like he is going to get challenged and it will open a debate, which is why the democrats struggle more to unite themselves.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): A note about regulation here, DXing. Why are so many conservatives mad at Bernard Madoff? He's a poster child for what conservatives wanted in the market-no regulations! He was able to do what he did because of no oversight and no regulation. And now, Republicans are yelling "no regulations!" even louder! Interesting.

They are mad at Madoff because he stole money from them as well as the democrats   .

Also hopefully there are investigations into why this man was able to easily steal $64.8 billion from thousands of people.

The one easy answer to this is that we are all greedy and people were seeing 15-20% returns on their investments and stayed in until the scheme collapsed, but their has to be more telling symptoms that made this kind of thing obvious.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): the economy has all but stopped functioning-credit was frozen

Credit froze because we issued too much credit to begin with. I don't want the banks to start lending again to anywhere near the same extent they have before. The government wants them to do exactly that, but all that would do is set up a repeat crash a few years from now in return for a few more years of ignorant bliss.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): And now, Republicans are yelling "no regulations!" even louder! Interesting.

Let's make this abundently clear. I work in a regulated industry (telecom). I don't question that telecom is an industry that needs to be regulated - there is plenty of opportunity for monopoly-style abuse.

We have mountains of government regulatory filings to constantly keep after. At least 95% of it is completely useless make-work for one government bureaucracy or another, being the same information we gave another department, but in a different format. We all know how most of these regulatory requirements came to be - somebody in government came up with a bright idea thinking "it would be nice if we got the information 'this' way." but nobody thinks of eliminating the old requirements. And I am sure that 99% of what we turn in ends up in an Indiana Jones style government warehouse for useless paperwork.

Conservatives like me have no problem with regulations if they are kept to intelligent levels. Yes, gather some information from all industry players, but do it once per year or quarter, one single form to fill out, and investigate abuse whenever there are complaints. But don't treat all companies they are continually being audited.

Believe me, you could get rid of 95% of the regulations on the books in our industry, and the competitive environment will not suffer at all for it - the only people that would suffer are thousands of government gnomes that suddenly would need to find other paper to shuffle.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Why are so many conservatives mad at Bernard Madoff? He's a poster child for what conservatives wanted in the market-no regulations! He was able to do what he did because of no oversight and no regulation.

For another thread but the fact is that Bernie Madoff started Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was investigated several times since 1999 so your insinuation that this is a problem confined soley to GOP administrations or Congresses or less regulation in particular is pretty disingenious. He operated in highly regulated times, 1960-1980 and less regulated times 1980-present. What this episode shows is that crooks aren't necessarily stupid and no amount of regulation will completely stamp out the ability of a crook to circumvent those rules.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): I don't want the banks to start lending again to anywhere near the same extent they have before.

Me niether, and, as I said, consumers cannot rely on it like they used to, Dreadnought, but credit IS needed-to buy big-ticket items like cars and houses. It has to function properly, and until that starts happening, the economy will continue to tank.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Conservatives like me have no problem with regulations if they are kept to intelligent levels.

Unfortunately, conservatives like you are in rare supply today. The new Conservative wants little or no regulation. Hell, guys like Hannity and Rush are STILL demanding little or no regulation, and that's absurd after what we've just seen.

Unfortunately, after a period where Madoff is a poster child for all that went wrong due to no oversight in the last decade, there is usually follows a period where too much will be done to correct the problem. Witness what happened after Vietnam with the curbing of CIA and presidential powers. It's human nature.

But after that period of over-reaction stops, we have to weed out what works and what doesn't, and stick to it. Unfortunately, I'm afraid next time a Republican is president, and they control Congress, we'll go right back to the same kind of no-regulation mania that got us, at least partially, where we are now.

The narrative that right-wingers are trying to write is that the American public has had a taste of Democratic policies and are swinging back to the old policies of the right. It's not true. There is a lot of data that supports the theory that the pendulum is swinging back to the middle of the political spectrum. Americans have recognized the bankruptcy of right-wing ideas and leadership. They are looking for practical, reasonable solutions to problems not ideology.

To read a serious analysis of recent poll data instead of typically mindless and yellow Wall Street Journal reporting, take a look at Nate Silver's blog:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...s-obamas-approval-ratings-are.html

Quoting DXing (Reply 5): For another thread but the fact is that Bernie Madoff started Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was investigated several times since 1999 so your insinuation that this is a problem confined soley to GOP administrations or Congresses or less regulation in particular is pretty disingenious. He operated in highly regulated times, 1960-1980 and less regulated times 1980-present. What this episode shows is that crooks aren't necessarily stupid and no amount of regulation will completely stamp out the ability of a crook to circumvent those rules.

I think you mean disingenuous?

Nevertheless, your point is well taken, DX. I am not entirely sure when Madoff made the transition from trader to criminal, though.

My old man once remarked that there has never been better proof of human intelligence than when fraud lies at the heart of the transaction.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2): Why are so many conservatives mad at Bernard Madoff? He's a poster child for what conservatives wanted in the market-no regulations!

Another question - how do you explain that Madoff was a very staunch democrat? Virtually all of his very sizable political contributions went to Democrats. If more regulation had a chance of catching him in his crimes, don;t you think he'd be supporting Republicans?

Bernard Madoff - Founder and Chairman

Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 03/31/1998: $300
Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 05/22/1998: $2000
Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 04/08/2002: $2000
Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D-NY) 08/18/2004: $2000
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 02/18/2004: $1000
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 07/20/2007: $2600
Ronald Wyden (D-OR) 03/25/2003: $2000 ($1000 each from Bernard Madoff and his wife)
James Matheson (D-UT) 10/18/2004: $250
Jon Corzine (D-NJ) 08/24/1999: $1000
Darlene Hooley (D-OR) 10/15/2004: $250
Joseph Crowley (D-NY) 08/26/1998: $500
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) 01/13/2000: $1000
Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR) 04/24/2008: $2300
Martin Frost (D-TX) 10/15/2004: $250
Richard Gephardt (D-MO) 09/23/2003: $2000
David Obey (D-WI) 03/10/2000: $1000
Edward Markey (D-MA) 05/15/1998: $1000
Edward Markey (D-MA) 06/17/2004: $4000
Vito Fosella (R-NY) 04/20/2000: $1000
Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY) 09/21/1998: $1000
Wilbert Tauzin (R-LA) 05/05/1998: $1000
Charles Rangel (D-NY) 10/23/1998: $1000
Charles Rangel (D-NY) 08/30/2001: $1000
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) 04/26/1999: $1000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 10/30/1998: $1000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 05/09/2005: $25000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 09/30/2006: $25000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 05/04/2007: $25000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 09/12/2008: $25000

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6): Unfortunately, conservatives like you are in rare supply today. The new Conservative wants little or no regulation. Hell, guys like Hannity and Rush are STILL demanding little or no regulation

I disagree. I think the Democratic mantra that Republicans and/or conservatives want no regulation whatsoever is a deliberate exaguration. Of course there ought to be regulations in banking, airlines, and a whole lot of industries. The problem is that every year we add more regulations, but the old ones remain. Regulatory compliance becomes more and more complicated and difficult (not to mention inefficient and lossmaking) every year.

Streamlining the regulatory environment, reducing the regulatory workload does not have any correlation with reducing the effectiveness of intelligent regulation - i.e. ensuring competitive practices and integrity of information. We just have to be smart about it - but we're talking about government here, so that's an uphill battle in and of itself.

And I'm sure Rush and Hannity would be the first to agree. We don't want NO regulation, we want briefer, more effective and pointed regulation.

I know that in my industry, the only time federal regulators do anything related to their purpose (ensuring competitive practices and integrity of information) is when a customer complains and they investigate, or when a CLEC (competitive carrier) complains that a local ILEC (independant carrier) is blocking access to their market, and the regulators have to step in to twist their arm. All the paperwork we turn in is utterly useless.

This is so typical of republican thought. The way you always think about solving a problem*
is start by assuming the problem doesn't exist, or has already been solved, then do what should be done to prevent the problem from occurring again. Prophylaxis is not problem solving. In other words, putting a condom on it after the fact isn't going to make her any less pregnant.

Yes, we are in this mess partly because people in Washington (ironically enough, the same people calling for less spending) spent like crazy over the last 8 years. But now that we're in it, stopping the spending because that's what we SHOULD have done before is just like the condom example. Now that we're IN the mess, the solution is not "don't get in a mess." And if spending is what will get us out of the mess, then turn off your damn ideology and solve the problem!!

Oh, and DXing: why are you offering the WSJ's OPINION page as proof of anything?
Other polls are showing a much higher approval rating for Mr. Obama. (Not that the WSJ Opinion page would EVER pick and choose which data it uses...)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama_favorableunfavorable-643.html

* a "problem" is a situation or event that is outside the typical course.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): Regulatory compliance becomes more and more complicated and difficult (not to mention inefficient and lossmaking) every year.

That's because GREED remains constant. Greed causes people to constantly seek ways around the regulation. It will ALWAYS be a perpetual game of cat and mouse. Unless you want to get burned, learn to deal with the regs.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): I think the Democratic mantra that Republicans and/or conservatives want no regulation whatsoever is a deliberate exaguration.

Unfortunately, what I've read ain other places for many conservatives thends to solidfy what I say, not lessen it. I've heard and read countless who think putting any new regulations is not wise, and some who think LESS regulations should be the way to go.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, which is fine, but I still contend there are some very hard-core conservatives who, even now, see regulation as a bad thing. But right now, with everything that has happened, more regulation is going to be the name of the game.

America has big problems:

- A mountainous debt load that was allowed to expand too much under years of military conflict
- Too much financial freedom
- No enough financial regulation to stop pyramid schemes and corporate crime

America needs much more rigorous financial regulations, and much more robust reporting. A healthy dose of good corporate-governance will go very nicely. CEO's taking pay cuts won't make much difference - but it will be a signal of change.

Make a CEO of a company have a pay-rate of AUD$335,200. That's the rate that a Director-General of a government department here is paid per year. No performance bonuses either. It doesn't matter if you run a department of 4300 people, or 10,000 people - it's the same rate.

The next level down (DDG) is about AUD$267,500, and from there down, there are many other steps.

My rate of pay is similarly fixed to my grade - I start off at a lower rate, and it then increments up to the highest level for my grade - once I'm at that level, if I want more pay, I need to apply for a higher graded position.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): I've heard and read countless who think putting any new regulations is not wise, and some who think LESS regulations should be the way to go.

I would agree that any new regulation is not wise unless it is balanced by a reduction of some of the useless regulation already in place. And absolutely less regulation is the way to go - as I told you, in my industry, you can eliminate 95% of our reporting and regulatory requirements and the government would still have all the key information it needs to ensure that we run our company in a competitive manner and that our financial and competitive statements are true and faithful.

And yes, I am in a position to know - I am VP Finance for my telecom company and compliance reporting falls under me.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): but I still contend there are some very hard-core conservatives who, even now, see regulation as a bad thing.

Regulation is a limitation and a burden, generally speaking, but necessary to ensure a playing field where people have an equal chance at success. Not equal outcomes, mind you, but a chance.

Criminal laws are regulations. The prohibitions against rape and murder are regulations on your freddom to do whatever the hell you want. Answering a census questionaire or an 1040 form once a year is a regulation and a burden. But they are necessary.

But how would you feel if you recieved a new census questionaire every few months and required by law to fill it out (and woe to you if you make an error on it or are late)? What if, on top of that, not only do you get a census questionaire from the commerce department, but you also get a another questionaire from HUD? And another from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). And another from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)? And one from the Economics & Statistics Administration? All asking basically the same questions.

You might think I'm joking, but that is the level of regulatory bullsh&t we have to put up with, and surely the banking and investment sector is no better.

Oh, and I forgot. All that crap we have to put up at the federal level? It's just as bad on the state level as well! While our company has only a couple of legal entities both in Kentucky, we have customers in every one of the continental 48 states, and every single state has a telecom regulatory agency that sends us exactly the same kind of BS questionaires that we file for the federal government.

Tell me Falcon - I've known you for years and know you can be a reasonable man - is that level of regulation reasonable, or is it an undue burden that can be streamlined and rationalized, with the purpose of giving them the information they need, ONE TIME.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): But right now, with everything that has happened, more regulation is going to be the name of the game

More regulation does not mean that the oversight will be any better. My direct experience tells me that it will simply be an excuse to increase the number of government paper-pushers and penalize business.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12): I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, which is fine

I'd rather know that I have made my point well, and that you will agree that "more regulation" does not mean better oversight, and "less regulation" does not mean a lack of the same.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): unless it is balanced by a reduction of some of the useless regulation already in place. And absolutely less regulation is the way to go

I agree with that fully. Less numbers of regulations are better, but the ones that are in place should be very robust.

That's called reducing red-tape. Nobody likes it, including the public servants who have to administer such regulations.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 14): My direct experience tells me that it will simply be an excuse to increase the number of government paper-pushers and penalize business.

Hey! Not fair - I'm not a paper-pusher and I'm not about penalising business.

Remember, we don't like red-tape either - because it makes our work more complicated and difficult too. We don't just sit back and say, let's make more red-tape - and I can't imagine any public servant who would ever do that.

You have to remember, regulation can evolve over hundreds of years - and it's not always so simple to repeal legislation because it can have unintended side-effects. It takes time and effort.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 15): I agree with that fully. Less numbers of regulations are better, but the ones that are in place should be very robust.

No argument

Quoting Cpd (Reply 15): Hey! Not fair - I'm not a paper-pusher and I'm not about penalising business.

LOL, it's nothing personal. It's institutional.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 15): Remember, we don't like red-tape either - because it makes our work more complicated and difficult too. We don't just sit back and say, let's make more red-tape - and I can't imagine any public servant who would ever do that.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 15): You have to remember, regulation can evolve over hundreds of years - and it's not always so simple to repeal legislation because it can have unintended side-effects. It takes time and effort.

I understand that. And it's not only in government - it happens in business as well. Years ago I was a manager for Consolidations & Reporting in a big multinational, and one of the biggest challenges was going through all the reports that departments and subsidiaries had been filing for years, and finding out which ones nobody even read any more in order to cancel them. At some point in the past, some analyst at corporate figured it would be nice to have a certain report, and managed to have it put in place as required reporting. Years later, after that analyst has gone on to other things and his replacements have designed new and improved reporting tools, the old report is still getting sent out just out of habit, because nobody ever bothered to send a memo saying "Schedule SC-14 is no longer required". It was a constant battle.

If that's the case in a company, where it is simply a matter of one or two people making a decision to cut unnecessary red tape, you can imagine what it's like in a government bureaucracy, where nothing can be done without committees, inquiries, commissions and testimony.

Interesting thread...I would argue that after this last stimulus package Congress should take a step back and give it time to work before considering a new one. In fact, I wouldn't touch another large stimulus bill for another 12 months at least, if not 24 months. For further economic stimulus I would explore other alternatives such as lowering corporate taxes (or giving special one-time credits for factories opening up in the US) and giving special incentives for large purchases such as homes and cars. I would also like to see the Administration start setting the foundation for national health care, but that's another thread.

I have to say though that this cry from the Republicans to simply stop spending is hypocritical. They should have made these calls before the last Administration spent like money grew on trees, taking us to expensive military adventures and expanding bureaucracy at home. They showed very little fiscal responsibility for the first half of this decade, to come acting now like they are truly concerned about our debt is just silly.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): For further economic stimulus I would explore other alternatives such as lowering corporate taxes (or giving special one-time credits for factories opening up in the US) and giving special incentives for large purchases such as homes and cars

Too late. Corporate taxes are getting set to rise, and the upcoming carbon tax is going to double people's utility bills in many parts of the country.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): I have to say though that this cry from the Republicans to simply stop spending is hypocritical. They should have made these calls before the last Administration spent like money grew on trees

Oh, come on - this repeated mantra by the left is ridiculous. Yes, Bush and the GOP ran up some deficits, but NOTHING in the league of Obama and the Dems. Deficits of 3-4% have always been relatively managable (not good, but managable) 12% and more is reckless - already the Chinese have warned that they might stop buy T-bills, and when that happens, say hello to heavy inflation, and I would not be surprised if the deficit hits 20% of GDP in 2010, signalling a complete collapse of our economy.

Here is the worrying part. Let's assume the worst, and assume that we had a party in power that wanted to intentionally collapse the economy, for whatever reason. This is basically how they would do it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Yes, Bush and the GOP ran up some deficits, but NOTHING in the league of Obama and the Dems.

When Bush left, we were around $10 trillion, is that not correct? That's about double what it was when Clinton left. So that's not a ridiculous statement.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): Oh, come on - this repeated mantra by the left is ridiculous.

First of all I'm not the left and second it is not ridiculous, it is a valid point. You can't pretend you like spending when it is your party doing it and then criticize it when it's the other party doing it. I don't agree with a lot of what the Democrats are doing right now and I have stated thus many times in here but what the Republicans are doing is nothing short of being hypocrites. Yet more proof why I made the right decision in becoming an independent, neither party can claim to really be looking out for the public.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19): When Bush left, we were around $10 trillion, is that not correct? That's about double what it was when Clinton left. So that's not a ridiculous statement.

And Obama is going to do in the next 18 months what Bush did in 8 years - IF his rosy growth forecasts come true. More likely, Obama's deficits over the next few years will double the national debt by the time he reaches the 2012 election.

The standard response of pointing at Bush for Obama's deficits is like a child molester justifying his actions by pointing to the misbehaviour of a schoolyard bully. Both are bad, but one is way worse.

[Edited 2009-03-14 21:44:08]

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 8): I think you mean disingenuous?

Yep, picked the wrong word off spell checker.

Quoting D L X (Reply 11): (ironically enough, the same people calling for less spending) spent like crazy over the last 8 years.

So two wrongs make a right? Keep spending even though we don't have the money? Not all conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives like me agreed with all the spending that has been going on for decades now. In some instances it was necessary, in others the various programs should have been reviewed and revamped or outright cancelled many years ago. Mohair susidies, which Sam Donaldson was so proud to be the reciever of, went on for how many decades after the end of WW2 and the end of a real need for surplus mohair? There are literally thousands of payoffs like that in the budget every year yet they never come up for review, just automatically rolled over into next years budget. Now we are adding entirely new programs that have no end and force the States to make changes to their laws that cannot be easily repealed. It's just ridiculous.

Quoting D L X (Reply 11): Oh, and DXing: why are you offering the WSJ's OPINION page as proof of anything?

The opinon piece itself is what it is, opinion. I don't call the opinion correct or incorrect. The polls contained within the piece are the source of the subject of the thread and come from various source polls and you either accept them or you don't. The link you provide is his favorable/unfavorable rating which I take to mean his personal likeability. Those numbers have always been high, the numbers cited in the piece relate to his job performance and tell somewhat of a different story.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ident_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Of course WSJ cherry picks the Ramussen poll, just as other news orginizations will cherry pick the best one. The graph in the link though does show a trend sliding downward unless you wish to dispute that as well.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): I would explore other alternatives such as lowering corporate taxes (or giving special one-time credits for factories opening up in the US)

Exactly what the members of the business leaders that met with him said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090312/pl_nm/us_obama_economy_1

"He added that he would be willing to consider lowering the corporate tax rate if the business community helped him to close tax loopholes."

Although if you saw video of his comments he had a real problem saying the words "free market" and at one point said that he envisioned business and government working together and "sharing" the profits which led me to ask, where is the risk for the government? The business puts up the capital, takes the risk, and the government gets to share the profits?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): I have to say though that this cry from the Republicans to simply stop spending is hypocritical. They should have made these calls before the last Administration spent like money grew on trees, taking us to expensive military adventures and expanding bureaucracy at home.

I would agree about the expanding bureaucracy at home but as to the military "adventures" as you put them, I would say one was absolutely necessary and the other may pay big dividends in the long run.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 17): They showed very little fiscal responsibility for the first half of this decade, to come acting now like they are truly concerned about our debt is just silly.

This is true yet when GOP members like Gov. Jindal, and Gov. Palin who weren't on the national scene during the Bush administration and the spending of 2001-2008 for the most part say that they want to end that and get back to fiscal conservatism they are ridiculed by the leftist press and lumped in with all those that did not practice fiscal conservatism.

Quoting DXing (Thread starter): By varying margins both parties are blamed but the bottom line of the poll seems to be...stop spending! Looks like it was a pretty short honeymoon with the voters and both Congress and the President seem to face an uphill battle to convince voters they have their interests at heart from here on out. Just a couple of what should be alarming tidbits for politicians of all flavors.

So you want all the troops home from Iraq (and everywhere else in the world) tomorrow?

You really want to stop spending? Cut the military budget by 90%.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): If that's the case in a company, where it is simply a matter of one or two people making a decision to cut unnecessary red tape, you can imagine what it's like in a government bureaucracy, where nothing can be done without committees, inquiries, commissions and testimony.

The reason for those committees and other stuff is the need for public accountability - everything is slower because there are so many more checks in place. Policy changes have to go out for public exhibition and comment as a draft, then the submissions are gathered for review and inclusion - the policy changes might be radically altered, etc. Then it has to be formally approved by the minister responsible, etc.

Even though it is slow, I prefer the process for accountability and transparency.

What I don't like is when different regulations conflict with each other. One regulation mandates that I should do something, and the other one says that I shouldn't do that because of some other concern or reasoning. It can become quite confusing. Those cases are rare, but it does happen.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23): So you want all the troops home from Iraq (and everywhere else in the world) tomorrow? You really want to stop spending? Cut the military budget by 90%.

I was saying that we should have had all the troops out of Europe in 1992. Out of Japan long before that. Be that as it may, the Constitution mandates that the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense of the nation. It says nothing about providing health insurance, education, or retirement benefits for anybody. Be that as it may entitlement spending still makes up 2/3rds of all spending, and the annual raises in that spending can only be changed by law. With the Presidents budget plans regarding health care and education that is bound to go up, even more than it goes up automatically every year. If the government ran its books the way it expects financial institutions to do so now, it would have to show FICA taxes as seperate and going directly to the Social Security trust fund. Even if you cut military spending by 90%, the difference in that gain versus what you would lose by seperating out the FICA tax would most likely still leave you in deficit given the Presidents indications of what policies he wants to pursue. What do you plan to cut next to get back to an actual balanced budget?

Quoting DXing (Reply 25): I was saying that we should have had all the troops out of Europe in 1992. Out of Japan long before that. Be that as it may, the Constitution mandates that the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense of the nation.

It does not mandate how much that budget is.

And the reason it doesn't mandate healthcare is because at the time it was written, healthcare consisted of bone-setting, minor surgery, and leaches/bloodletting. Any modern constitution in any other country considers that to be a fundamental right.

Anachronism is not a valid reason to suppose that healthcare shouldn't be provided. After all, the Constitution does consider a lawyer to be a fundamental right. But not a doctor?

Quoting DXing (Reply 25): What do you plan to cut next to get back to an actual balanced budget?

The War on Drugs. Legalize all illicit drugs and regulate and tax their production and sale. Turn it from a money sink to a source of revenue. In the process, you will completely gut the drug cartels just like the bootleggers were completely gutted when Prohibition ended.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): It does not mandate how much that budget is.

Nor did I say it did. As a matter of fact I gave you your 90% cut but if we are going to be honest then you have to agree that cooking the books by issuing IOU's to the SS trust fund and including that revenue in the general budget is a shell game whose time has come as well.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): And the reason it doesn't mandate healthcare is because at the time it was written, healthcare consisted of bone-setting, minor surgery, and leaches/bloodletting. Any modern constitution in any other country considers that to be a fundamental right.

You are free to start a petition to amend the Constitution at anytime.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): Anachronism is not a valid reason to suppose that healthcare shouldn't be provided. After all, the Constitution does consider a lawyer to be a fundamental right. But not a doctor?

Because the whole reason for the Constitution is to protect the rights of the citizen (and supposedly the States) from the tyranny of the federal government which in most cases will require a lawyer. Yet what you propose is to take away a persons right to associate with whomever he or she chooses to regarding their health care. Please don't give me that line about how the President says you will still have choice. If it is a single pay system you do not have any choice, save leaving the country to get your medical care. No monopoly can exist with competition.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): The War on Drugs. Legalize all illicit drugs and regulate and tax their production and sale. Turn it from a money sink to a source of revenue. In the process, you will completely gut the drug cartels just like the bootleggers were completely gutted when Prohibition ended.

Yet alcohol and cigarettes are some of the most heavily taxed items on the market. Groups from MADD to the American Lung Association work every day to further limit the use of and make illicit the use of alcohol and cigarettes. So how long after legalizing current illicit drugs would it be before they were once again being subjected to frontal assaults from groups demanding severe restriction or outright ban?

Quoting DXing (Reply 25): Be that as it may, the Constitution mandates that the Federal government is responsible for providing for the common defense of the nation. It says nothing about providing health insurance, education, or retirement benefits for anybody.

Uh, after saying "provide for the common defense" it says "promote the general welfare" of the nation. And, it can be argued, DXing, that such things promote the general welfare of the people of this nation, can it not? Again, if I remember right, you're more of a strict constructionist, and that CAN be a strict reading of the Constitution.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): And, it can be argued, DXing, that such things promote the general welfare of the people of this nation, can it not?

Difficult to argue. "General Welfare" means it has to be of value to everyone. National defence qualifies. Roads qualify. Anything that smacks of redistrbution, or giving something to people who can't or won't pay for it does not. But since when do we pay attention to the Constitution in the past 50 years anyway...

My biggest worry about national health care is that it will be rationed. Anytime you make something free, demand will increase. That means that older people will not get treatment because it is not deemed of sufficient benefit. In britain, a few years ago, the NHS implemented a policy where problems like cateracts or macular degeneration would not be treated until the patient went blind in at least one eye.

The US Government does not WANT Americans to pay for their own health care - otherwise they would make private health insurance payments tax-exempt.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): Difficult to argue. "General Welfare" means it has to be of value to everyone.

Perhaps, or of welfare to a large number of Americans. I'm not a strict constructionist, so I thnk that fairly vague statement can be interpreted to mean some of the things DXing mentioned.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29): Anything that smacks of redistrbution, or giving something to people who can't or won't pay for it does not.

Your opinion, nothing else. The Founding Fathers didn't exactly spell it out, did they? And I believe they left it vague on purpose, to cover eventualities they didn't count on. I believe the Founding Fathers didn't want it to be construed literally, which is why there's a vagueness in that statement. They were smart enough to realize that they had no idea what the future would hold, and that the world would be made up of many things they could never have forseen.

Quoting DXing (Reply 22): So two wrongs make a right?

That kind of simplistic way of thinking is how we got into this mess. What was wrong in one situation might be completely right in a different situation. Spending going into a war is a stupid idea, but spending when the economy is failing is the correct solution. I do agree with you that the stimulus is not 100% great, but the example you're speaking of without mentioning by name is absolutely vital to dealing with large scale unemployment, a biproduct of a failing economy.

Quoting DXing (Reply 22): Of course WSJ cherry picks the Ramussen poll, just as other news orginizations will cherry pick the best one. The graph in the link though does show a trend sliding downward unless you wish to dispute that as well.

It's still meaningless. No politician should ever be beholden to a daily whims of 1000 people called at random. If you can agree with me on that point, the natural follow up question is what is the point of the article?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30): Perhaps, or of welfare to a large number of Americans.

No, that's a tyrany of the majority, and that was something the founding fathers wanted to avoid by making the Senate, which was originally selected by state legislatures. James Madison wrote about in the Federalist Papers (can't remember which one) about demegogues gaining power with popular support making stupid decisions. The Senate was supposed to stop that kind of thing, but of course we screwed that up by making the Senate directly elected.

Falcon, I hope you would agree that we CANNOT pass redistributive programs that benefit "large numbers" and especially a majority of Americans if it means confiscating it from others. All that is designed to do is create a large voting bloc that will always vote for those who send them the checks (with someone else's money).

Here's the danger we face now.



What we have now is a tyranny of the majority. Because 60% of America benefits from the labors of the other 40%, it’s a winning electoral formula, one that Democrats exploit at every election cycle when they ramp up the class warfare rhetoric demanding that “the rich” pay their “fair share.”

What is a fair share? Is it fair when a 40% minority is robbed to benefit the 60% majority? Would be more fair if 30% of people were robbed to benefit a 70% majority?

In the old days, Just about everyone contrinuted and only the lowest 10-20% or so were actual beneficiaries. Taxing a smaller share of higher earners even more in order to subsidize the rest of the country is not only economically unworkable, it’s morally repugnant. At what point do people get fed up and say they’re not going to put in that extra effort, those additional hours of work so that their slave masters can reap the benefits of their labor?

The Tax Foundation has written a very interesting file which I strongly urge everyone to read: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Quoting DXing (Reply 27): Yet alcohol and cigarettes are some of the most heavily taxed items on the market. Groups from MADD to the American Lung Association work every day to further limit the use of and make illicit the use of alcohol and cigarettes. So how long after legalizing current illicit drugs would it be before they were once again being subjected to frontal assaults from groups demanding severe restriction or outright ban?

Part of that is because tobacco and alcohol are probably the two most dangerous recreational drugs that exist. I have seen more cancer, emphyzema, and cirrhosis caused by alcohol and tobacco than I have seen negative sequelae of all other recreational drugs combined. And the negative sequelae of the other recreational drugs (endocarditis and HIV from injection use) are caused by the fact that those drugs are not available in a clean form, not because of the drugs themselves. The same is true of many other drugs. The problem is usually the impurities caused by the illegality, not the drug itself.

The other thing is that we need to stand up to organizations like MADD and the ALA who seem to be hell-bent on mandating our behavior for us so as to make us healthy and ensure that their legislative activities are targeted at the companies that make tobacco and alcohol, not the people who consume them.

Quoting DXing (Reply 27): Yet what you propose is to take away a persons right to associate with whomever he or she chooses to regarding their health care.

That right doesn't exist currently. Your insurance has a list of "in-network" and "out-of-network" doctors. And you don't get to pick your insurance unless you're absurdly wealthy. And besides, providing everyone with basic healthcare would not take away that right. If you want to pay for additional insurance for "luxury" care on top of that, you probably could. That's how it works in Spain, for example.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): Uh, after saying "provide for the common defense" it says "promote the general welfare" of the nation. And, it can be argued, DXing, that such things promote the general welfare of the people of this nation, can it not?

Unfortunately in the case of the preamble which most people refer too, those are not enumerated powers of which the Constitution specifically says that those powers not specifically enumarated to the federal government remain with the States or the people. In article one section 8 the use of the term "general welfare" is used in conjunction with the federal governments powers in relation to foreign governments, the States, and Indian tribes. Not once in the section is the "individual" refered too. The individual is refered to several times in other sections of the Constitution most notably in the amendments.

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html

"First, what did "welfare" mean in the age of the Founders? From the Free Republic Web Site:

We all know the meaning of words can change over time. In order to more accurately assess the meaning of the word "welfare", with respect to its use in the Constitution, I consulted a source from that period. I happened to own a reprint of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word "welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens."

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): Again, if I remember right, you're more of a strict constructionist, and that CAN be a strict reading of the Constitution.

Yes I am and no it can't since the common defense is specifically enumerated and health care is not. If it is not specifically enumerated then the government has no right to claim that power.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31): That kind of simplistic way of thinking is how we got into this mess

Simplistic or not to blame the previous administration(s) for over spending while on the same hand exempting this one is the perfect example of adding two wrongs to supposedly come out with a right. If it was wrong for the previous administration(s) to over spend then it can be no more correct for this one to do so.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31): but the example you're speaking of without mentioning by name is absolutely vital to dealing with large scale unemployment, a biproduct of a failing economy.

How much did we spend between 1933-1939 on large scale government projects and how much did it reduce the great depression? Yet we are supposed to believe that history will not repeat itself if we simply spend more?

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): If it was wrong for the previous administration(s) to over spend then it can be no more correct for this one to do so.

That's simply not true. The economy is tanking because no one is spending. Someone has to do some spending to get it going again.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): How much did we spend between 1933-1939 on large scale government projects and how much did it reduce the great depression? Yet we are supposed to believe that history will not repeat itself if we simply spend more?

Again, simplistic. We have to address the problem that is before us. This thing we are facing right now is not the same as the Great Depression. It's simpler in some ways, and more complex in other ways.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): Your insurance has a list of "in-network" and "out-of-network" doctors.

My insurance allows me to chose any doctor I like, including in other count

Quoting D L X (Reply 35): That's simply not true. The economy is tanking because no one is spending. Someone has to do some spending to get it going again.

Typical Keynesian nonsense. Ask the japanese how well their stimulus spending worked. And the economy tanked basically because the government put in place a multi-trillion dollar stimulus into the housing sector over the past decade or two, via Fannie & Freddie plus easy money from the Fed. It creates a false bubble, distorts the market, and ends up crashing.

One of the current problems which has come home to roost is that the American consumer has for a decade of so been carrying the US economy with its spending, not the Govt. per se, it why for so many years, the savings rate in the US was the lowest among the industrial nations. No question that many persons and nations benefited from that spending, the balance of trade deficit that the US grew was laughed at some by saying the US consumer shoud not spend and buy as much, but that spending ensured that foreign workers via the products imported made a good living. Down side for the US was that to offeset some of that imbalance, they decided to devalue their currency, which had a whole other set of problems. Now the US consumer has nothing saved for that rainy day, so the damage is hitting hard and quick, part of the blame has to go to the political establishment - White House and Congress - who did nothing to slow down consumer spending, in fact they did all they could to encourage it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 30): Perhaps, or of welfare to a large number of Americans. No, that's a tyrany of the majority, and that was something the founding fathers wanted to avoid by making the Senate, which was originally selected by state legislatures.

Again, that's pure conjecture, nothing else, because beyond the words, the Founding Fathers said nothing, did they? I respect your opinion on this, but I'm wary of agreeing with it. Again, the Founding Fathers knew what they didn't know and couldn't forsee, and they also knew every thing that came up wouldn't require an amendment. I think they wanted it to be a breathing document, that could be flexible with time, not a rigid document. Free nations don't function well with unbending rules that can't change with the times.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): Falcon, I hope you would agree that we CANNOT pass redistributive programs that benefit "large numbers" and especially a majority of Americans if it means confiscating it from others.

I don't see where anything is being "confiscated", Drednought.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): Unfortunately in the case of the preamble which most people refer too, those are not enumerated powers of which the Constitution specifically says that those powers not specifically enumarated to the federal government remain with the States or the people.

That may be, but it IS in the Constitution, and is subject to interpretation, just like anything else in it. And it can be argued that what I said is a legitimate point of view.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): "First, what did "welfare" mean in the age of the Founders?

It doesn't matter what they thought of any word in 1789! It's what it means TODAY,and as far as today goes, those in 1789 could have no idea what would happen 200 years later. To say they would, or to say that the document can't change from 1789 to 2009 is absurd, in my view. And I think the Founding Fathers were smart enough to reralize that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): Yes I am and no it can't since the common defense is specifically enumerated and health care is not.

But "general welfare" IS enumerated, and that can cover a whole host of things. You just won't admit the possibility. Well, I believe in the living document, and I believe it CAN cover things not spelled out. I think it's a easy way out to say it can't be interpreted.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): Part of that is because tobacco and alcohol are probably the two most dangerous recreational drugs that exist. I have seen more cancer, emphyzema, and cirrhosis caused by alcohol and tobacco than I have seen negative sequelae of all other recreational drugs combined.

Perhaps because a majority of people in this country are law abiding and don't use illicit drugs on any where near the basis that they use alcohol or tobacco?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): The other thing is that we need to stand up to organizations like MADD and the ALA who seem to be hell-bent on mandating our behavior for us so as to make us healthy and ensure that their legislative activities are targeted at the companies that make tobacco and alcohol, not the people who consume them.

That's nice rhetoric but you ought to know that in the real world all they have to do is show some cases of young people that managed to get alcohol and drank themselves to death or show a driver on his 5th DUI that wiped out some poor family on their way to church and the pendulum swings their way. In the case of tobacco I would argue the opposite. How many years now have the dangers of smoking been widely advertised and yet you still have 2-3 pack a day people claiming that it was the evil tobacco companies fault that they contracted cancer or some other problem and are suing for millions? At some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): That right doesn't exist currently.

????
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quoting D L X (Reply 35): That's simply not true. The economy is tanking because no one is spending. Someone has to do some spending to get it going again.

The economy is tanking because people spent too much and cannot afford to pay it back. In some cases it was credit cards, in other cases they bought homes they could not afford when the interest rate changed. Some of that goes back to Congress failing to put the brakes on Fannie and Freddie or telling them to lay promoting mortgages as securities that could not fail. The solution is certainly not to have the federal government do the same dumb thing that individuals did, spend them selves into a hole in the ground.

Quoting D L X (Reply 35): Again, simplistic.

And that is not an answer.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): That may be, but it IS in the Constitution, and is subject to interpretation, just like anything else in it.

Not technically since the preamble is not enforceable. The Constitutions legality starts with Article 1 section 1. It's also subject to the tenth amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): And it can be argued that what I said is a legitimate point of view.

Sure it is, but the facts are against your position. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government is responsible for, or has the right to deny me, the health insurance that I want and can afford. In going to a single payer system and restricting other medical options they are taking away from me my basic right to associate with the doctor of my choice. It would be the same if they were trying to tell me what kind of car I can drive, where I can bank, what sort of home I can purchase or where. Many of those items could be construted to be regulated for the "general welfare" but in reality would only be the federal government grabbing more power away from the States and the individual where it is not spelled out specifically in the Constitution.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): It doesn't matter what they thought of any word in 1789!

Assuming that is true then the Constitution is meaningless in your world.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): To say they would, or to say that the document can't change from 1789 to 2009 is absurd, in my view. And I think the Founding Fathers were smart enough to reralize that.

Yes they were. That is why they added Article V:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

To date it has been used 27 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): But "general welfare" IS enumerated, and that can cover a whole host of things.

Not if they are not enumerated.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): I think it's a easy way out to say it can't be interpreted.

And I think it is the easy way out to not follow the rules that the Constitution lays down quite clearly. We had to have an amendment to the Constitution to grant the federal government the right to collect income tax even though the Constittution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. However that right was always upheld as restricted to commerce and not the individual since in the same section that covers the common defense and general welfare you find the legislatures right to tax. The section does not mention the individual as I described earlier. If the government could not tax the income of the individual what makes it fair to say they have the right to force a health care system on me via the general welfare clause? Want single payer federally run health care? Pass an amendment to the Constitution.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): The economy is tanking because people spent too much and cannot afford to pay it back.

I agree, that is one of the causes.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): In some cases it was credit cards, in other cases they bought homes they could not afford when the interest rate changed.

I agree with that too. Those are both some of the reasons we're in a mess.

Another HUGE issue is the war, which I've noticed you've left out. Another big strain on the economy was tax breaks going into that war. The straw that broke the camel's back seems to have been the $4 gas. These are all major factors for the economic mess. So, if you're going to be an honest broker in this conversation, you'd do yourself a favor to also discuss the causes that Republicans are not comfortable admitting instead of scapegoating the issues on the liberal side that you don't like.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): The solution is certainly not to have the federal government do the same dumb thing that individuals did, spend them selves into a hole in the ground.

Wrong. We live in a consumerist world. If no one is spending, the economy shrinks.

Oh, I bet you think the solution is tax breaks. What's going to happen with tax breaks? People are just going to save it, not spend it and grow the economy. OR, the effect of having more income in the hands of consumers will simply mean that things will become commensurately more expensive. This is simple supply and demand economics there, and this is why ideology does not solve problems.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): And that is not an answer.

Well, until you can show me why your comment was relevant, it's all you're going to get.

Quoting DXing (Reply 34): If it is not specifically enumerated then the government has no right to claim that power.

Then shutdown Air Traffic Control tomorrow and let the airlines and all people flying fend for themselves. Pretty ridiculous, but that's what you seem to want.

If we had to pass an Amendment every time we wanted to get something done in this country at the Federal level, our country would be paralyzed and we would still be a poor agrarian country with a life expectancy of about 40. Maybe that's a Republican dream for America, but I don't think most people would care for it.

You'll notice that the only countries in the world whose Federal government's spend little are 3rd world nations. The Republican utopia of having a modern 1st world nation with a tiny federal government doesn't exist and cannot exist. The demands of modernity simply exceed what the free market and/or individual can provide. If you want a tiny Federal government, you'll have to regress the U.S. back to being mostly an agrarian nation with no infrastructure, education or healthcare.

Now with all that said, I'll agree that the U.S. cannot continue to spend money it doesn't have. There has to be a balanced budget with maybe small surpluses in good times and small deficits in bad times. This will require restructuring Social Security and Medicare as well as non-entitlement spending cuts.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): In the old days, Just about everyone contrinuted and only the lowest 10-20% or so were actual beneficiaries

True, and in the old days, most Americans were evenly working poor....hence why most people paid an even level of taxes. There were very few uber wealthy individuals and nothing like what we have today.

The reason the wealthy are paying more and more is because the wealth in this nation is become more and more concentrated in the hands of the few. If you concentrate all the wealth to a small minority, but still want to have a modern country, you are forced to tax the living crap out of the wealthy. But as we replace our middle class with low-wage Walmart jobs, all the wealth transfers up and these folks have little income to offer.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): Is it fair when a 40% minority is robbed to benefit the 60% majority?

But are those 40% being robbed? Believe it or not, those 40% didn't become wealthy without help from a lot of other taxpayers.

The millionaires at Walmart (who pay a lot of taxes) wouldn't be so wealthy if there weren't roads to carry goods to their stores. Some of your gas tax money went to build those roads and Walmart contributed little to the construction of the highway system.

Bill Gates wouldn't be so wealthy if our school systems don't turn out some educated people to work for him. But Bill Gates didn't pay nearly enough in taxes to educate all those workers.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): Not technically since the preamble is not enforceable.

If it isn't enforcable, then your asserting that "provide for the common defense' is also not enforcable, and could be considered a State right, is that not so? You can't have it both ways, DXing. Either they are both enumerated, ro they're not. Which is it? Saying one is and one isn't is pure contradiction, within the same document.

Fact is, if "Common Defense" is in the Document, and is enumerated (and how many ways can THAT be interpreted?. What about defense against disease, poverty, famine, etc?), then "promote the general welfare" can ALSO mean medical coverage, basic welfare for those who cannot work, etc.

Again, you're trying to have it both ways. You can't. I'm not trying to do that. I say BOTH are enumerated, and count and are valid.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): It doesn't matter what they thought of any word in 1789! Assuming that is true then the Constitution is meaningless in your world.

Wrong. It just means I don't think what it meant in 1789 in a society that was light years away from what we have now, is the same thing. And the Amendment process doesn't change that. The very notion of conservativsm-the unwillingness to change or to acknowledge change-is at the heart of our disagreement here. Times change; the way we live changes; the way we interact, do business, travel, etc, has all changed in ways the Founding Fathers could NEVER have imagnined. And "never imagined" is key here. They knew there would be changes they could never envision, and gave the document flexibility thorugh it's vagueness in wording-so that we COULD adjust to those changes. So, on this one, I believe conservatives are dead wrong, and that the liberal interpretation of the Constitution is, for the most part, correct-the Document has to change over time, or else it'll eventually come to mean nothing.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 38): But "general welfare" IS enumerated, and that can cover a whole host of things. Not if they are not enumerated.

Again, if "provide for the common defense" is, by your definition enumerated, even though it is in the Preamble, and not "enforcable", then the same applies for "promote the general welfare." Or the opposite is true-that they're both enforcable. But you cannot conveniently split the two up, just to satisfy your ideological bias.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): Another HUGE issue is the war, which I've noticed you've left out.

Because that is providing for the common defense and I don't believe it was wrong for the government to do so.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): Another big strain on the economy was tax breaks going into that war.

Disagree based simply on the increase in reciepts. By cutting taxes the government received more in revenues than before the tax cuts.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): The straw that broke the camel's back seems to have been the $4 gas.

Agreed.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): So, if you're going to be an honest broker in this conversation, you'd do yourself a favor to also discuss the causes that Republicans are not comfortable admitting instead of scapegoating the issues on the liberal side that you don't like.

Giving people mortgages and availability to excess credit is not a liberal or conservative problem although it was liberals that were pushing Fannie and Freddie. Conservatives dropped the ball by not insisting on tighter safe guards so I see that as a bipartisan failure.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): Wrong. We live in a consumerist world. If no one is spending, the economy shrinks.

The economy has and is shrinking and government spending is only slowing the process. When prices get to a certain level people will start buying again because they will feel the products price is worth the cost. That's what economic cycles are all about.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40): Oh, I bet you think the solution is tax breaks.

I certainly don't think raising taxes is the answer. Whether it be through carbon credits or taxing a persons health benefits, capital gains, or inheritance.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): Then shutdown Air Traffic Control tomorrow and let the airlines and all people flying fend for themselves. Pretty ridiculous, but that's what you seem to want.

The ATC system would be, by definition, promoting the general welfare since it operates to help commerce between the States.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): If it isn't enforcable, then your asserting that "provide for the common defense' is also not enforcable,

Both phrases are found in the Constitution twice. In the preamble, and in Article 1 section 8. The part in the preamble is not enforceable since by definition the preamble is just an announcement. Article 1 section 8 is enforceable and deals with the federal governments inter actions with foreign governments, the States, and Indian Tribes. The individual is not mentioned once in the section. I really don't know how many more ways to put that so you'll understand the difference. Individual rights are largely defined in the Bill of Rights.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): Fact is, if "Common Defense" is in the Document, and is enumerated (and how many ways can THAT be interpreted?. What about defense against disease, poverty, famine, etc?), then "promote the general welfare" can ALSO mean medical coverage, basic welfare for those who cannot work, etc.

Again, "providing for the common defense" refers to the common defense of the States, not the individual. Promote the general welfare means the welfare of the States which is why the Article also refers to the power of the federal government to provide for the uniformity of taxes between the States among other things. Tell you what, why don't you tell me where the individual is mentioned in that entire section. Show me just one place in section 8 where the individual citizen is mentioned just once.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): They knew there would be changes they could never envision,

Which is why they left open the amendment process.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): and gave the document flexibility thorugh it's vagueness in wording-so that we COULD adjust to those changes.

What is vauge about:
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

or are you only going to call vauge those parts which you know don't say what you wish them too so you can ignore their meaning?

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Both phrases are found in the Constitution twice. In the preamble, and in Article 1 section 8. The part in the preamble is not enforceable since by definition the preamble is just an announcement.

But you argued that "provide for the common defense' IS enforcable in the Preamble, but "promote the general welfare is not."

And the ATC system is not spelled out in the Constitution, is it, DX? Show me where it is? You're a strict constructionist, so that should NOT be a government job, any more than providing basic welfare for those who can't work? But ,as I said, it is something that the Fathers of tha nation could never have forseen, so the Preamble CAN be construed to enumerate ANYTHING that helps the welfare of many. So much for strict constructionism.  

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Again, "providing for the common defense" refers to the common defense of the States

Against what? Not just foreign enemies. What about disease? Famine? Natural disasters? That's part of providing for a common defense, is it not. Nothing is cut and dried, as conservatism would like us to believe. It IS subject to be interpreted.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): They knew there would be changes they could never envision, Which is why they left open the amendment process.

And why they left such vagueness in the Preamble-to cover things that don't require an Amendment to be dealt with by future generations. Or, should we have an Amendment establishing ATC? By your definition, we should, because the Constitution cannot be interpreted, but must be taken "as is". Again, you want it both ways. You can't have it both ways. Which is why I believe it's a living document. It has to change with the times, to meet needs/situations that we could never envision, and that don't require an Amendment.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): are you only going to call vauge those parts which you know don't say what you wish them too so you can ignore their meaning?

No, I call it "vauge" because it's exactly that-vague. "Provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" as interpreted in 1789 isn't exactly the same way it can or should be interpreted in 2009. You don't want to account for how the world has changed in that 220 years. But it has changed, immensely, and the Constitution would have failed by now had we simply followed strict constructionism. The document wasn't a conseravtive document. It was a liberal document, and liberal things don't shy away from change.

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): ???? Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Explain how that has anything to do with healthcare?

Quoting DXing (Reply 39): That's nice rhetoric but you ought to know that in the real world all they have to do is show some cases of young people that managed to get alcohol and drank themselves to death or show a driver on his 5th DUI that wiped out some poor family on their way to church and the pendulum swings their way. In the case of tobacco I would argue the opposite. How many years now have the dangers of smoking been widely advertised and yet you still have 2-3 pack a day people claiming that it was the evil tobacco companies fault that they contracted cancer or some other problem and are suing for millions? At some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

That's all well and good. But here's the thing about alcohol. We need to toughen the laws about drinking AND DRIVING. In other words, when the victim is someone other than the perpetrator, then get tough on it. Not the alcohol, the driving.

As for tobacco, did you know that if you don't smoke by age 19 then there is a less than 5% chance that you'll start smoking? The tobacco companies are well aware of this fact, which is why Joe Camel and other such campaigns exist. The trick is to keep teenagers from starting to smoke, which is is an area of research that is going on in my division right now at work.

Actually, if you were going to go for prohibition, tobacco would be the easiest target since a smoker requires such a huge quantity of drug to maintain the habit that the costs of smuggling would be truly prohibitive.

But I think that for the other drugs, we're spending more than it's worth to battle the problem with a hammer when a scalpel is far more effective.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Because that is providing for the common defense and I don't believe it was wrong for the government to do so.

I'm not going to rehash the argument about whether it was right or wrong to go to war, but the fact remains that WE WENT. Regardless of "rightness" or "wrongness", it is a drain on our economy. You must take that into account.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): By cutting taxes the government received more in revenues than before the tax cuts.

Please provide a source. I find that extremely dubious considering the fact that we used to have a surplus, and now we don't.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Conservatives dropped the ball by not insisting on tighter safe guards so I see that as a bipartisan failure.

Sure, it's a bipartisan failure. Absolutely. (But guess which party wanted less regulation!)

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): When prices get to a certain level people will start buying again because they will feel the products price is worth the cost.

Not the people who don't have jobs! And having a high unemployment rate is a HUGE drain on the economy. (And on the government!)

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): I certainly don't think raising taxes is the answer.

Nobody is raising income taxes.

now as for cap and trade, I'm not surprised you're against that either. It's always been bad for business to make business be clean. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Now, you may have an argument about the timing of it though.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): The ATC system would be, by definition, promoting the general welfare since it operates to help commerce between the States.

Okay man, don't use the preamble as a legal roadmap for anything. It's not law, and it has no effect on the application of the constitution.

You did back into the answer though: Congress has the constitutional power to regulate commerce between the states and internationally. (Except where preempted by treaty.)

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): What is vauge about: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That's easy. How do you reserve something both to the states AND to the people? If that OR means a literal or, how do you determine whether or not the power is delegated to the state versus the people? That's a major ambiguity.

Also add that in with context of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Sounds like the Tenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment are in conflict with each other. What rights are retained by the people?

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Quoting DXing (Reply 43): By cutting taxes the government received more in revenues than before the tax cuts. Please provide a source. I find that extremely dubious considering the fact that we used to have a surplus, and now we don't.

LIke the fallacies of the presidency of one Ronald Reagan, that's an old Republican stand-by to attack Democrats over. It isn't true, but it makes for great conversation.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44): But you argued that "provide for the common defense' IS enforcable in the Preamble, but "promote the general welfare is not."

Where? I argued that both statements are in the Constitution twice. In the preamble and then again in Article 1 section 8.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42): If it isn't enforcable, then your asserting that "provide for the common defense' is also not enforcable, Both phrases are found in the Constitution twice. In the preamble, and in Article 1 section 8. The part in the preamble is not enforceable since by definition the preamble is just an announcement. Article 1 section 8 is enforceable and deals with the federal governments inter actions with foreign governments, the States, and Indian Tribes

I don't understand where you are getting the argument that I only said it was in the preamble, I think I was pretty clear. As to the air traffic control system.

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): Then shutdown Air Traffic Control tomorrow and let the airlines and all people flying fend for themselves. Pretty ridiculous, but that's what you seem to want. The ATC system would be, by definition, promoting the general welfare since it operates to help commerce between the States.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44): Against what? Not just foreign enemies

Nope, domestic ones too.

STATUTE Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following
oath:
''I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I
will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
So help me God!"

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44): What about disease? Famine? Natural disasters?

Those would be the job of the CDC, Interior department, and FEMA.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44): And why they left such vagueness in the Preamble-to cover things that don't require an Amendment to be dealt with by future generations.

Because the preamble is not enforceable as I have stated several times. It is a mission goal statement in short. Article 1 section 8 contains both phrases and is enforceable.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 44): No, I call it "vauge" because it's exactly that-vague. "Provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" as interpreted in 1789 isn't exactly the same way it can or should be interpreted in 2009. You don't want to account for how the world has changed in that 220 years. But it has changed, immensely, and the Constitution would have failed by now had we simply followed strict constructionism.

But how they are used, in conjunction with the States, foreign governments, and Indian tribes is not. You have yet to answer:

Quoting DXing (Reply 43): Tell you what, why don't you tell me where the individual is mentioned in that entire section. Show me just one place in section 8 where the individual citizen is mentioned just once.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45): Explain how that has anything to do with healthcare?

A single payer system will almost assuredly end my choice of physician, which I have now, in favor of you see whomever is on duty. That takes away from my freedom of association at the least, and probably infringes on several other of my rights in the Bill of Rights.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45): which is why Joe Camel and other such campaigns exist.

Joe Camel was dropped many years ago and I have yet too see a replacement.

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Please provide a source. I find that extremely dubious considering the fact that we used to have a surplus, and now we don't.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. We never had a surplus and we never will as long as FICA taxes are included in the general fund and we are replacing them with IOU's. On top of that much of those "surpluses" were found in the out years and disappeared with the .dot com bust, the resulting recession, and further economic down turn after 9/11. As to a source that tax reciepts went up after the tax cuts of 2001?

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...&status=article&id=266627596553650

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): (But guess which party wanted less regulation!)

But guess which party was promoting Freddie and Fannie as solvent right up to when they started going under pretty much the way Jim Cramer on CNBC has been blasted for pushing Bear Stearns, as well as telling financial institutions that they should continue to loan to people whom under ordinary circumstances would not qualify, and was telling those same bankers that the government would back up their investments?

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Not the people who don't have jobs! And having a high unemployment rate is a HUGE drain on the economy. (

Define "high unemployment".

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Nobody is raising income taxes.

When the Bush tax cuts expire, what happens.

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Okay man, don't use the preamble as a legal roadmap for anything. It's not law, and it has no effect on the application of the constitution.

Don't fall for Falcons misinterpretation of what I said. See above.

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): That's easy. How do you reserve something both to the states AND to the people? If that OR means a literal or, how do you determine whether or not the power is delegated to the state versus the people? That's a major ambiguity.

The people decide that at the State level via the State Constitution. No ambiguity.

Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Sounds like the Tenth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment are in conflict with each other. What rights are retained by the people?

Not at all, they actually complement each other. When the Constitution was written States Rights actually meant something. Now the States are unfortunately pretty much just extensions of the federal government. The rights retained by the people are listed in the Bill of Rights.

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. We never had a surplus and we never will as long as FICA taxes are included in the general fund and we are replacing them with IOU's.

There you go again, citing opinion pages as fact. But in any event, regardless of whatever accounting style you prefer, we had a lot more money and a lot less deficit when Clinton left office.

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): But guess which party was promoting Freddie and Fannie as solvent right up to when they started going under pretty much the way Jim Cramer on CNBC has been blasted for pushing Bear Stearns, as well as telling financial institutions that they should continue to loan to people whom under ordinary circumstances would not qualify,

Another deflection. Both parties promoted home ownership. BOTH. The death knell was the Republicans doing whatever they could to allow lenders (not just Fannie and Freddie, btw) to be shady without regulation.

I mean, come on! How can you argue this position? It is the M.O. of the Republican party to loosen regulation, and let the free market rule. Laissez faire!!

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Not the people who don't have jobs! And having a high unemployment rate is a HUGE drain on the economy. ( Define "high unemployment".

Michigan.

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): When the Bush tax cuts expire, what happens

That's going to depend on what's going on in the economy. Obama is on record noting that tax increases on anyone at this time is not a good idea and he won't do it. Do you deny that?

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Okay man, don't use the preamble as a legal roadmap for anything. It's not law, and it has no effect on the application of the constitution. Don't fall for Falcons misinterpretation of what I said.

I don't need to rely on Falcon. I've studied Constitutional law myself, and I can read what you wrote also.

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): Quoting D L X (Reply 46): That's easy. How do you reserve something both to the states AND to the people? If that OR means a literal or, how do you determine whether or not the power is delegated to the state versus the people? That's a major ambiguity. The people decide that at the State level via the State Constitution. No ambiguity.

Actually, no. There are some rights that are individual rights vested in each person that the state constitution cannot touch.

Quoting DXing (Reply 48): The rights retained by the people are listed in the Bill of Rights.

You realize that comment is in direct conflict with the Ninth Amendment, right?