Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
if he stayed on after impeachment, he would be defying the legislative branch.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
IMO, the gov't will grow until it can't anymore - who knows what the limit is. They already get about half my income from various taxes and charges. Some for services I agree with, like the military, roads, water, police and firemen. I don't have the solution, I am interested in hearing about better ways of doing things.
Of all the parts of the gov't - the congress is most disturbing to me - they have managed to place themselves outside of the rules and systems that their constituency must deal with.
In business, I am told that things either grow or shrink, why is that? Somethings, gov't for example, should be able to remain the same size (I think ours may need to shrink though).
sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
if he stayed on after impeachment, he would be defying the legislative branch.
So you're saying he wouldn't be illegitimate until impeachment.
What if the Congress refused to impeach him? Hell, I'm not sure a person's being born overseas even meets the requirement of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Point is, the Congress cares about getting re-elected, not the constitution. There are example after example.
Your statement to 7th was "either you think the government is legitimate or you do not". You then proceeded to say what he should believe.
That's a false dichotomy, it allows for no middle ground. There are certain areas that can be argued illegitimate, without declaring the entire government illegitimate.
I can argue the Administrative Procedures Act to be a violation of the non-delegation clause in the way it is executed. That doesn't mean every law passed by the Congress is unconstitutional.
A SCOTUS ruling is a legal decision, but it doesn't alter the facts of a matter. Things can be unconstitutional even if the court hasn't ruled on them. Reference the D.C gun ban prior to Heller. It was an unconstitutional law, but it was still enforced.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
i'm confused. either you think the government is legitimate or you do not. if you think it's legitimate, then the statement "the point is that the force is not arbitrary, and was agreed to by the people through their representatives" should be at least PARTLY true, and not "BS in capitals".
Legitimate? I think not. Its corrupt to the core, bloated and out of control. What we are seeing today is the people trying to reign in control, we are the ones tagged as domestic terrorists and tea baggers.
and if you do not think it's legitimate, why serve in its armed forces?
I don't anymore, and doubt I would ever serve in this current incarnation.
why bother voting?
Because I hold hope that we can solve our problems through newly elected officials.
isn't this perpetruating a broken system?
If we keep voting for the same old crooks and elitists.
to use a metaphor that you might not completely like, are you a socialist who accepts the basic legitimacy of the system and wants to see it reform, or are you a communist that thinks the entire system is broken and wants to destroy and rebuild it from the ground up?
How in the hell do you arrive at that??:confu:
How about that I am a Constitutionalist/Libertarian(I think there are very closely oriented) that believes if the progressives keep at thier game, we are screwed. Revolt then becomes option as outlined by our founders.
Your statement to 7th was "either you think the government is legitimate or you do not". You then proceeded to say what he should believe.
That's a false dichotomy, it allows for no middle ground. There are certain areas that can be argued illegitimate, without declaring the entire government illegitimate.
not at all. in fact, one of my original comments to 7th was, if you think the government is legitimate but that "there are certain areas that can be argued as illegitimate", then you would agree with my original statement:
"the point is that the force is not arbitrary, and was agreed to by the people through their representatives" should be at least PARTLY true, and not "BS in capitals".
in any case, in response to where you originally came into the debate,
I didn't see where 7th made the claim that gov't is illegitimate. His comments were about the 16th amendment.
Your tendency to reduce everything to either/or choices once again, with nothing in between.
his answer is crystal clear. so no, not MY tendency here.
Legitimate? I think not. Its corrupt to the core, bloated and out of control.
obviously i disagree with his assessment, but my posts to him were questions to ascertain his position and get him to explain his reasoning. he's done so.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Legitimate? I think not. Its corrupt to the core, bloated and out of control. What we are seeing today is the people trying to reign in control, we are the ones tagged as domestic terrorists and tea baggers.
I don't anymore, and doubt I would ever serve in this current incarnation.
Because I hold hope that we can solve our problems through newly elected officials.
thanks for answering my questions.
by the way, i'm not calling you a socialist or a communist-- i was trying to see if your thinking re: reform vs revolution was closer to the former or to the latter.
as far as i understand you, you seem to be a reformist losing his patience and about to turn into a revolutionary, correct?
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
The Austerity Myth: Federal Spending Up 5% This Year
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/17/2011 08:05 AM ET
When Republicans took control of the House in January, they pledged to make deep cuts in federal spending, and in April they succeeded in passing a bill advertised as cutting $38 billion from fiscal 2011's budget. Then in August, they pushed for a deal to cut an additional $2.4 trillion over the next decade.
Some analysts have blamed these spending cuts for this year's economic slowdown.
But data released by the Treasury Department on Friday show that, so far, there haven't been any spending cuts at all.
Higher Spending, Deficits
In fact, in the first nine months of this year, federal spending was $120 billion higher than in the same period in 2010, the data show. That's an increase of almost 5%. And deficits during this time were $23.5 billion higher.
These spending hikes haven't stopped many analysts from claiming that the country is in an age of budget austerity, one that's hurting economic growth.
A July article in USA Today, for example, claimed that "Already in 2011, softer government spending has sapped growth."
Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, wrote over the summer that "government spending cutbacks have been a large drag on growth in recent quarters and have led to sharp losses in state and local employment."
Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued in September that "the turn toward austerity (is) a major factor in our growth slowdown."
If government spending is related to growth, as these and others claim, then the economy presumably should be growing faster, not slower, given the current higher rates of federal outlays.
State Spending Higher Too
Nor does the claim that state governments sharply cut spending stand up well to closer scrutiny.
Overall state spending continued to climb right through the recession, when all money from state general funds and other funds, federal grants and state bonds is combined.
Total state outlays in 2010 were almost 10% higher than in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers' annual State Expenditure Report.
And general fund spending — which makes up about 40% of total state spending — is expected to climb 5.2% in 2011 and 2.6% next year, according to the association's latest survey.
NASBO says that states were able to sustain spending growth through 2010 only because the federal government was pumping more money in via the $830 billion stimulus, and that these funds are now all but exhausted.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
Every once in a while a liberal says what he really thinks. Today Harry Reid explained why the Democrats prefer funding public sector jobs rather than permitting private sector job creation:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.
“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
Yes, the private sector is doing just great. That’s why unemployment is over 9%, with “real” unemployment more like 20%. And, as I noted on Monday, government spending has done nothing but increase at all levels, even as many companies are cutting back.
Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that’s our priority.” He said Republicans are calling the bill a “failure” because they are “using a different benchmark for success than we are.”
And who is going to pay for all of those government jobs? The private sector, to liberals like Reid, is nothing but a fatted calf, or–to switch animals–a golden goose that will never stop laying eggs. They really believe that the people exist to serve the government, rather than the other way around.
Meanwhile, what is the richest city in the United States? Washington, D.C., with the average federal employee making more than $126,000 annually.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
i was trying to see if your thinking re: reform vs revolution was closer to the former or to the latter.
as far as i understand you, you seem to be a reformist losing his patience and about to turn into a revolutionary, correct?
I'll stick to what I said, that I think is quite clear.
How about that I am a Constitutionalist/Libertarian(I think there are very closely oriented) that believes if the progressives keep at thier game, we are screwed. Revolt then becomes option as outlined by our founders.
Comment