Reducing the deficit

[For-Life]

Which I would agree with. But I do assign responsibility for that to the government in general rather than blaming it all on one party. Then again if we all took a stance in the middle we'd have nothing to argue about and that's no fun either now is it?

The blame should be assigned to the system that allows these problems to develop. I am personally critical of the following:
- Two parties. Should be at least four
- Elections every two years. How can you get something done if politicians are always campaigning? Have all Senate, House and Presidential elections the same year.
- President has way too much power. Power should belong to Congress and Senate, not one person.
- Campaign financing. Should be $1000 per person, with no corporate or special interest group


Eliminating these issues would clean a lot of the problems up. Not all of them. Of course, no system can clean them all up. But if this system is not fixed, it will destroy itself. It is not too far away.

[For-Life]

Then why would Sotomayer back away from her judges make law statement? She said she was mis understood with her statement. She told everyone at her hearings that she now believes judges do not make law. that law makers make the law.

If judges make the law.. why is congress there?

You are confusing the idea of a Common Law society, and how judges interpretations of the law develop new laws versus the idea of creating new laws via congress.

[shanbaum]

Then why would Sotomayer back away from her judges make law statement? She said she was mis understood with her statement. She told everyone at her hearings that she now believes judges do not make law. that law makers make the law.

If judges make the law.. why is congress there?

I was disappointed that she did back away from it - I suspect that she was advised to say what she had to say to get confirmed, just as "balls and strikes" Roberts (who certainly knew better) did.

As you might glean from what I wrote, Congress, and the state legislatures, certainly have the power to pass laws that supersede the common law (with some exceptions, see, e.g., the Seventh Amendment). In Connecticut, for example, there are no common law crimes; they've been explicitly abolished by statute. But most of the common law of torts (personal injury), contracts, and property persist, largely unmodified by statute. And, as noted, statutes are hardly ever sufficiently "complete" to just be applied to all the fact patterns to which they pertain. So, we have both.

Some Congresspersons have apparently discovered that they can evoke indignation among the less-well-informed by railing against "activist" judges. At least some of that is disingenuous, because some of them know better. Ultimately, whether a judge is "making" law or "interpreting" it tends to be determined by whether one agrees with the decision. For example, I found the Citizens United decision to be profoundly innovative (that is, "activist"), bestowing rights on corporations (which are today almost entirely creatures of statute law) that heretofore have belonged only to natural persons. This, from a court that in other contexts, would almost certainly disclaim the concept of "group rights".

[kcount]

Judges make all tort laws, they interpret civil laws, and make ongoing rulings that shape the understanding of law. Congress creates the framework that discribes what the laws should outline. Think of it like this, Congress builds the house, Judges decide where the furniture should go and what to paint the walls.

[MasterCrafter]

The blame should be assigned to the system that allows these problems to develop. I am personally critical of the following:
- Two parties. Should be at least four
- Elections every two years. How can you get something done if politicians are always campaigning? Have all Senate, House and Presidential elections the same year.
- President has way too much power. Power should belong to Congress and Senate, not one person.
- Campaign financing. Should be $1000 per person, with no corporate or special interest group


Eliminating these issues would clean a lot of the problems up. Not all of them. Of course, no system can clean them all up. But if this system is not fixed, it will destroy itself. It is not too far away.

Now i am really confused.

I agree with everything you just said.......................... lol

You sound like a true libertarian/ alomst conservative hhehe

EDIT: I think that campaign finance should be clarified here. An actual person that is alive with a valid US/state drivers liscense/id card. Just to make sure ;)

[kcount]

The blame should be assigned to the system that allows these problems to develop. I am personally critical of the following:
- Two parties. Should be at least four
- Elections every two years. How can you get something done if politicians are always campaigning? Have all Senate, House and Presidential elections the same year.
- President has way too much power. Power should belong to Congress and Senate, not one person.
- Campaign financing. Should be $1000 per person, with no corporate or special interest group


Eliminating these issues would clean a lot of the problems up. Not all of them. Of course, no system can clean them all up. But if this system is not fixed, it will destroy itself. It is not too far away.

Presidential powers:
1)commander in chief of the armed forces and the state militia
2) appoints-with the senate's consent- head of executive departments
3) may pardon people of convicted federal crimes
4) make treaties with the advise and consent of the Senate
5) appoint ambassadors, federal court judges, and other top officials with Senate approval
6) delivers the annual State of the Union address to Congress
7) calls special sessions of Congress when needed
8) meets with head of state
9) commissions military officers of the United States
10) ensures that the laws of Congress are "faithfully executed"
11) can issue special "executive orders" which are special laws that do not require congress approval.

So, excluding #11 most of the powers of the executive branch (ie:POTUS) have to be approved of by congess in some form. #11 is typically used in very extreme cases.

Outside of this I would agree to some extent with your post although we already have more than 2 parties, it's just that all the others are way underfunded and can never do more than pull away votes for one of the two major parties. I know my balott is often filled with agazillion parties most of which I have never heard of nor seen.

[For-Life]

Now i am really confused.

I agree with everything you just said.......................... lol

You sound like a true libertarian/ alomst conservative hhehe

EDIT: I think that campaign finance should be clarified here. An actual person that is alive with a valid US/state drivers liscense/id card. Just to make sure ;)

I am left centre or centre left. I do not belong to a political party, and in Canada, have voted for all major parties at one time or the other. And even though I tend to vote for one party versus the others, I have spoken up against that party on many occasions. I believe in:
- Fiscal responsibility (revenues equal at least expenditures and sometimes more). Thus, balanced budgets or surpluses
- Libertarian socially. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of marijuana (but not of other illegal drugs), ect
- Transparency and accountability
- Government in health care and education, but to be stringent and disciplined on the tax dollars they use
- Raising taxes when necessary, but lower taxes when the system is surplused
- Using reason and science in politics over feelings
- Separation of church and state, but the freedom of religion under it


Campaign finance, yes, they have to be an actual alive person and a citizen.

[For-Life]

Presidential powers:
1)commander in chief of the armed forces and the state militia
2) appoints-with the senate's consent- head of executive departments
3) may pardon people of convicted federal crimes
4) make treaties with the advise and consent of the Senate
5) appoint ambassadors, federal court judges, and other top officials with Senate approval
6) delivers the annual State of the Union address to Congress
7) calls special sessions of Congress when needed
8) meets with head of state
9) commissions military officers of the United States
10) ensures that the laws of Congress are "faithfully executed"
11) can issue special "executive orders" which are special laws that do not require congress approval.

So, excluding #11 most of the powers of the executive branch (ie:POTUS) have to be approved of by congess in some form. #11 is typically used in very extreme cases.

Outside of this I would agree to some extent with your post although we already have more than 2 parties, it's just that all the others are way underfunded and can never do more than pull away votes for one of the two major parties. I know my balott is often filled with agazillion parties most of which I have never heard of nor seen.

I do not like 3 under any circumstance. I also certainly do not like 11. Finally, I do not like the fact that the President should have veto powers.

[MasterCrafter]

I was disappointed that she did back away from it - I suspect that she was advised to say what she had to say to get confirmed, just as "balls and strikes" Roberts (who certainly knew better) did.

As you might glean from what I wrote, Congress, and the state legislatures, certainly have the power to pass laws that supersede the common law (with some exceptions, see, e.g., the Seventh Amendment). In Connecticut, for example, there are no common law crimes; they've been explicitly abolished by statute. But most of the common law of torts (personal injury), contracts, and property persist, largely unmodified by statute. And, as noted, statutes are hardly ever sufficiently "complete" to just be applied to all the fact patterns to which they pertain. So, we have both.

Some Congresspersons have apparently discovered that they can evoke indignation among the less-well-informed by railing against "activist" judges. At least some of that is disingenuous, because some of them know better. Ultimately, whether a judge is "making" law or "interpreting" it tends to be determined by whether one agrees with the decision. For example, I found the Citizens United decision to be profoundly innovative (that is, "activist"), bestowing rights on corporations (which are today almost entirely creatures of statute law) that heretofore have belonged only to natural persons. This, from a court that in other contexts, would almost certainly disclaim the concept of "group rights".

Wouldnt this make judges the most powerful people in America

[Spexvet]

Wouldnt this make judges the most powerful people in America

No, because they can't initiate anything.

[eyeguy21]

The blame should be assigned to the system that allows these problems to develop. I am personally critical of the following:
- Two parties. Should be at least four
- Elections every two years. How can you get something done if politicians are always campaigning? Have all Senate, House and Presidential elections the same year.
- President has way too much power. Power should belong to Congress and Senate, not one person.
- Campaign financing. Should be $1000 per person, with no corporate or special interest group


Eliminating these issues would clean a lot of the problems up. Not all of them. Of course, no system can clean them all up. But if this system is not fixed, it will destroy itself. It is not too far away.

Amazing! I think we are in agreement. I'll add to that only slightly saying that the president having too much power is probably my main concern about big government. I think I'm on the same page as you that the power should be with the House and Senate but I think a little bit of that power needs to be returned to the individual states. Arizona should be able to deal with immigration without hassle from the government and here in Missouri we should be able to decline the Health Insurance mandate like 70% of us voted for. Also I think that with your election timeline I'd add "term limits." The whole Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurmond making a lifelong career out of politics and then sucking the government teat in retirement has got to go. But again in general, I see nothing about this that I disagree with.

I find if you dig deep enough on the issues a lot of us are more mainstream than you'd think. We just have to get past all the rhetoric and confusion tactics long enough to realize we're all basically on the same side. My youngest has a cartoon titled "a bugs life" that has a line that always reminds me of who we are. Basically the movie is about a small group of Grasshoppers that bully a much larger group of ants into feeding them every so often. When one of the grasshoppers says to the leader why bother with it the main one voiced by Kevin Spacey replies "They outnumber us a hundred to one, if they ever figure that out we're all in trouble."

You ever feel like an Ant?

[Uncle Fester]

Interesting, from New York Times columnist David Leonhardt.

Quote:
So here's a little rule: If you want to be taken seriously when you rail against the deficit, you need to support one of the following four policies. Better yet, support more than one.

Ready for the four? One, cuts to Medicare. Two, cuts to Social Security. Three, military cuts. Four, tax increases. Any budget expert will tell you that we simply cannot fix the deficit without doing at least one of those four.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...r-the-deficit/

So if taxes are raised to the level when Reagan was president and a 4% National 1% State value added tax was created anyone know how much of a dent that would put in the deficit?

[MasterCrafter]

So if taxes are raised to the level when Reagan was president and a 4% National 1% State value added tax was created anyone know how much of a dent that would put in the deficit?

Value added taxes are lame... why do you people want to pay more taxes? Are you not taxed enough?

[For-Life]

Value added taxes are lame... why do you people want to pay more taxes? Are you not taxed enough?

Because there is a major deficit

[Uncle Fester]

Value added taxes are lame... why do you people want to pay more taxes? Are you not taxed enough?

Because I don't want to cut Medicare and Social Security to an amount that would put vast numbers of beggars on the street. Or require death panels to decide at what point the infirm or elderly no longer qualify for taxpayer funded help.

The military can be cut measurably but again it wouldn't be enough and no Congressman is willing to do the right thing for fear of losing jobs in their district.

And if you think that is the solution I would caution you to be careful what you wish for.

[For-Life]

Keeping spending the same and increasing taxes will not balance the budget
Keeping taxes the same and cutting spending will not balance the budget.

You need to raise taxes and cut spending to balance the budget.

[Uncle Fester]

Keeping spending the same and increasing taxes will not balance the budget
Keeping taxes the same and cutting spending will not balance the budget.

You need to raise taxes and cut spending to balance the budget.

I agree but knowing how much revenue a value added tax would generate would let us see how much of a haircut we need to take in the other programs.

Hey! How about we sell Alaska to China!! :)

[DragonLensmanWV]

Yeah, nobody important comes from there. And you can see Russia from there so you instantly have major International experience without actually doing any.

[For-Life]

I suggested this earlier. This is something that could happen in the short term, while a longer term strategy can be developed:

- Repeal the Bush tax cuts ($250,00+ today. If you want, you can delay the rest of them by 2012).
- Bring in Rae days. 10 days off, unpaid to all government employees for the next two years. This will be able to save money without laying people off. We have to remember that cutting government services = cutting jobs = higher unemployment rates
- Freeze on all public sector pay increases
- A 5% rollback of all expenses for all politicians. It is silly when Obama is recarpeting the White House and people are unemployed. While this will not fix things, it is symbolic that the politicians are doing what is right for the people.



I think this is something that will not hurt economic growth and not eliminate jobs at the same time.

[MasterCrafter]

VAT is not needed. When europe first did it they said it would only be like 1 to 3%. now most countries there r like 15% to 23%.

you people put too much faith in politicians. Remember once they get thier foot in the door. It never stops.

Plus i vote to get rid of california :bbg:

[eyeguy21]

Hey! How about we sell Alaska to China!! :)

Well in this case, if it's all the same to you guys what we do with Alaska, can we sell China the Caribou and Keep Alaska for the oil?

[eyeguy21]

- Repeal the Bush tax cuts ($250,00+ today. If you want, you can delay the rest of them by 2012).

I think this is something that will not hurt economic growth and not eliminate jobs at the same time.

There are those though that believe Repealing these cuts will encourage US entities to open branches in other parts of the world where the tax rates are more friendly. Wouldn't that take jobs with it? I'm well below the 250K mark but I have concerns with the fact that our corporate tax rate is already the 2nd highest in the world (2nd only to Japan). I think right now we need to keep the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple more years and keep US interests right here in the US and try and stimulate private sector growth.

[For-Life]

There are those though that believe Repealing these cuts will encourage US entities to open branches in other parts of the world where the tax rates are more friendly. Wouldn't that take jobs with it? I'm well below the 250K mark but I have concerns with the fact that our corporate tax rate is already the 2nd highest in the world (2nd only to Japan). I think right now we need to keep the Bush tax cuts for at least a couple more years and keep US interests right here in the US and try and stimulate private sector growth.

We are talking 3%. None of these businesses moved to the US when the Bush tax cuts were implemented, and they certainly will not leave. If this was 10%-15%, then fine. But these companies are not going to leave for 3%.

[For-Life]

VAT is not needed. When europe first did it they said it would only be like 1 to 3%. now most countries there r like 15% to 23%.

you people put too much faith in politicians. Remember once they get thier foot in the door. It never stops.

Plus i vote to get rid of california :bbg:

Yes, but they also lowered tarrifs and person income taxes. Or, they did not have a value added tax in the first place, and thus double or triple charged things at the manufacturing level (so the tax was charged to the wholesaler, then when it was sold to the retailer it was charged, and when it arrived at the final client it was charged again. Value added only charges it at the final channel).

[eyeguy21]

We are talking 3%. None of these businesses moved to the US when the Bush tax cuts were implemented, and they certainly will not leave. If this was 10%-15%, then fine. But these companies are not going to leave for 3%.

Are you suggesting that only 3% will operate outside of the US? Or 3% tax increase? This is where I think you and I are going to disagree but I believe that the corporate tax rate needs to drop to at least 25% if not 20% before you're going to see the private sector really expand and open up the job market. That's how you get people back to work and I believe it was you who in a previous thread said that it's those types of employees who spend wages rather than save.

I have a friend in the garage door business who lives a decent life but nothing like I think you have in mind. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about all of this. But I can tell you that he's struggling pretty good right now which leads me to believe that his employees are feeling it too.