You said "the topic of impeaching judges was brought up in direct reference to this case." Now you're bringing up Terry Schiavo?

Just goes to show that the calls for impeachment weren't limited to the outer fringes like WND and were still going strong two years later by elected officials.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you had to find another case that had nothing to do with a right to sodomy that was decided two years later to find a politician calling for judicial impeachment. If you'll recall (or care to read earlier in this page) I said there was no serious "debate" over impeachment.

But yeah, if you don't want to pay attention to a word either of us have said before now, you totally pwned me.

True, there were no articles of impeachment against a judge introduced. But the topic was broached repeatedly by a senior Congressional official which is something that you can't ignore.

And why the artificial wall with cases only involving rights to sodomy? The conservative majority was very vocal about many judicial decisions they didn't like, and the rumblings were quite loud to do something to enforce the "tyranny of the majority" via changes to the judiciary.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging the absolute irrelevance to everything we (including you) have been talking about up to this point. This was about Lawrence v. Texas, not Terri Schiavo. This was about the Lawrence v. Texas decision coming down in the midst of our 8-year reign of "conservative authoritarianism". If you're trying to make the point that a senior Congressional official broaching the subject of impeachment without being able to muster up the support needed in the House for impeachment is evidence of that "conservative authoritarianism", I'd suggest you've got an odd idea of what an authoritarian-style government looks like.

But like I said, other than that you've completely pwned me. I bow before your mad intertube skillz.

That's exactly the point. You were trying to make the claim that Lawrence v. Texas shows there wasn't an environment of "conservative authoritarianism". What I'm saying is that there was definitely an attempt to move towards that, with Rove's plan for a permanent majority and DeLay's involvement with redistricting, etc.

The courts were set up to be buffered against the ebbs and flows of popular opinion, and the bellowing about "judicial activism" and veiled threats of impeachment from Congressmen were certainly intended to circumvent those buffers.

Sorry to steer the discussion away from sodomy, but Obama's speech and Q?A with the Republican Caucus today was extraordinary. I'd love to see more of this public debate between our leaders.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/20...20Retreat.aspx

Yeah, I hadn't heard about it until I watched TV. But I gotta say (not being a Democrat or someone who voted for the President) that it was well done and a home run if you're on the left, for simply having him face his critics. No, nothing productive will come out of it of course on a political tip.

But in the same week where you've given the State of the Union, to have the President -- a year into his term -- do something like this and handle it as deftly as he did, the ex-politico in me just claps at his team for getting it done and getting cameras there.

I'm not arguing any of those issues, just that the anti-gay movement is not centered around Fred Phelps. It's a large percent of the rights voting block and the reason they included it as a wedge issue in elections.

To anyone who says that homosexuality is not a major Republican issue... Proposition 8, anyone?

Now see, I'd be hard pressed to disagree substantially with anything I think you said in the above quote.

I might disagree with what you think of the general position, even maybe with how you might characterize it, but something along the line of "overall topics in the niche are definitely a top 10 (or higher) issue with a significant portion of the GOP core voters" is something I'd back you on without any hesitation.

After the unprecedented give and take session the administration held at the GOP's place last week today the train keeps going and Obama will field questions from youtuber's at:

http://www.youtube.com/CitizenTube#p/c/EB843ABAF59735FD

It begins at 1:45 and he supposedly doesnt know what questions will be asked ahead of time.

If the openness by the administration AND the willingness to work together ramps up for the next year by both parties and the Executive, This could be a very good year for the American people.

IF, AND

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride,
If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots and pans
There would be no need for tinkers hands!

aka "consider me skeptical that will happen"

I'm thinking more likely it's just a dog and pony show.

I'm pretty sure Citizen tube has something to do with soylent green.

Agreed. If a policy is a shit sandwich, it doesn't matter if you promote it as a new and improved shit sandwich. It's still a shit sandwich.

Agreed, if the policy is to be obstructionist or bully-headed than that really is a shit sandwich. However, if collaboration and compromise is in the cards than thats good for everyone, IMO.

It gets us our largest debt ever and even more government spending, according to the budget just released...

another good example of the hypocrisy and obstructionism - the proposed bipartisan budget committee that had republican co-sponsors who then turned against it after Obama said he supported the idea

When Leadership Isn’t « The Washington Independent

It's laughable. It's hard to take the administration seriously when they write up a budget relying that heavily on borrowed money in addition to what is already owned. How the heck do you explain that's good management of funds?

It seems like the Democrats can't even get out of their own way at this point.

and your last sentence is a joke.

Best week for Dems in a long time politically and you write that.

That makes it hard to take you and your opinions seriously.

Fiscal responsibility isn't really the hallmark of either major party - look at the massive deficit spending by Bush.

At least Clinton balanced the budget after the Regan+Bush years and got us to a surplus.

That being said - I'm all for a balanced budget amendment - it's the only way we'll see real fiscal responsibility. Otherwise it's "party in power spends...other party campaigns against it...gets into power and lo-and-behold has to spend in order not to cut programs and piss off its voters"

wait - you were still taking his opinions seriously? :lol:

You're making the false assumption that I was any happier with the spending when Bush was in charge. I've repeatedly hammered his adminstration for their defecit spending. I'm just annoyed that Obama is making Bush look like a small-timer in comparison. Both are brutal in that regard.

Perhaps you are able to justify the deficit spending on a partisan basis. I think it's embarrassing no matter who's doing it.

who's trying to justify it on a partisan basis? :confused: did you miss the part where i called for a balanced budget amendment and decried the general lack of fiscal responsibility by either party that was also in that post that you (selectively) quoted. or did you just selectively quote from it because it better fit your narrative?

I think people are just pointing out that while you say you were upset, you rarely posted about it. Now you release the daily talking points from the right. Just seems very partisian since you did none of this while Bush was in power.

I'm not even on board with a 'balanced budget' amendment. That's a joke because it only balances the budget for that year. I want a 'deficit elimination' amendment. Anything else is worthless.

I must have missed something; what went on that changed direction so fast? Was it Obama tweaking the Supreme Court incorrectly? The rest of the State of the Union where after a year of ignoring his campaign he trotted his talking points out again? The massive budget he just released (that doesn't go after defense spending like Dems have been pushing for, *phew*)? Or were the dog-and-pony shows enough for you?

Washington as a whole remains pretty disgusting these days in general. Time to vote third-party on principal this next time around...

One, a balanced budget or deficit elimination amendment is unworkable and unenforceable outside of being a bad idea.

Two, while I'd like to see a big reduction in the structural deficit there isn't any good way to get to a balanced budget this year. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to pull a trillion+ dollars out of the economy right now either through spending cuts or tax increases? And if that happened it seems almost assured that tax revenues would be further reduced leading to more of a deficit that would require more spending cuts or tax increases.

I've been vocal in the past for eliminating the structural deficit, but can anyone explain how to do that in this economy in the short term? This is going to take years.

Simply speaking comparably and based on what the pundits grade of the last week it seems to be a good week. Im not sure it changes any longer term direction BUT it certainly is faux-shocking to have a commentary about the Dems stepping on themselves during their 'good' week. I have no doubt MBBF has all kinds of talking points to regurge on here however the overall concensus is that, the SOTU, the GOP face to face, and today's internet face time, as a PR issue, alone is 'positive' for the dems. Perhaps when the budget starts to be a daily or hourly headline things'll continue the trendline MBBF wanst...however, today, his comment is just, well, MBBF.

Not necessarily. The deficit is a projection based on given commitments. Those commitments can be changed or restructured significantly to avoid running up the deficit to its current projected level. It will take some work, but the number you see is not a hard number. In some ways, it's a big reason why politicians don't get anxious about it. Much of the money is projected far down the line, when they may or may not be in office. As a result, they're able to distance themselves from the responsibility that they should be taking to make a realistic attempt to balance the budget and reduce the projected deficit.

I guess it's easier to make it about someone else than to address the real issues at hand. You mirror the current administration in that regard.

It's just tiresome debating a partisian because you know what "their" point of view is on every matter before they even speak. I can run through the right wing blogs tomorrow and know exactly what you'll be posting.

It's one thing to debate an issue with someone who has independent thoughts on a matter and real emotion toward something, and another who is just regurgitating talking points they were told to be mad about.

And the dismissal of people as partisans if they oppose the administration's policies is what got them into this mess and it's going to continue to be a problem as they continue towards November.

Obama doesn't have a clue right now why he's getting so much resistance from the voters. He THINKS he does, but it's blatently obvious that he does not. I actually think he's a really nice guy who's an idealist, but it's becoming very obvious that makes for a lousy commander-in-chief during lean times.

that's splitting hairs, because it's not about what it's called, it's about what it contains, and as it's a hypothetical at this point a "balanced budget amendment" could well = a deficit elimination amendment. an amendment that accomplishes deficit elimination sounds good, whatever you want to call it.

fwiw people don't dismiss you as partisan because you oppose the administration's policies.

+infinity..................................................

When the post I responded to did exactly that, it's hard to argue otherwise. But I shouldn't bother arguing it. RainMaker is well-known on this board for lumping people into groups. I probably should have just let it go and speak for itself.

Here's a very cool budget graphic from the NYT: Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal, Department by Department - NYTimes.com

That has nothing to do with it. It's just that arguing with a partisian isn't arguing with the person, but the site/people that told them what to think. There is little independent thought behind true partisians, just following the leader. I wouldn't be arguing with you but with Michelle Malkin or whoever else gave you the daily talking points.

Sort of makes you realize that many of the squabbles over particular projects is so minor in the grand scheme of things. Will be tough to really cut the deficit without cutting into defense.

And as long as you continue to think that, you will be working on false assumptions. I've never read Michelle Malkin and didn't even know who she was until you introduced me to who she was a year ago. I prefer to not be dismissive of one side or the other when it comes to gathering information. It allows some people to ignore viewpoints to make themselves feel they're more right, but doesn't enhance critical thinking skills in any way and certainly doesn't give a full knowledge of the issues at hand.

Great, now I have a line from a movie ("It's time for the dog and pony show"), and I can't remember what movie it's from. This is gonna drive me crazy until I find out.

Or Social Security
Or Medicare
Or Government Health programs
Or Government Subsidies

There's plenty of places to cut. If all you saw that could be cut was defense, we have little to discuss.

It's a bit scary, when you press the "hide mandatory spending" button, to see just how much money the government is forced to pay due to all of the programs and laws passed, but also pretty telling in how much control the President and Congress don't have over how much money is spent each year.

It would also be nice if they had a similar map for Income.

His approval ratings are generally equal to or slightly higher than his 2008 vote %.

btw- When did you go from Obama is a socialist to Obama is a really nice guy?

I've stated from before he was even President that he seemed like a good guy. He's just a naive idealist. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you're not running our government.

It's only mandatory if you don't want to make the hard choices to curtail spending. Someone needs to find the balls to cut some bills that will make the hard decisions that others won't make.

Like the $200 billion we spend yearly on Afghanistan & Iraq?

(and hey, that's not even mandatory spending!)

:D

+1

i feel for the innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a part of me thinks the prudent course is just to wipe them the fuck out. and while we're at it...Iran and Saudi Arabia too. Once and for all. The whole "Islam's bloody borders" phenomenon is just so tiresome and is going to end up costing us more than it would cost to just permanantly end the problem, once and for all.

You don't fight by the rules, you fight to win. Somebody punches me in the face I'm going to kick them in the nuts till I shatter their balls. And then I'm going to stomp on their face.

this page of this thread makes me LOL

I consider Medicare and Social Security seperate in a way since we are taxed seperately and the money held in a trust. We will have to figure out a way to deal with that over the years by either reducing benefits or increasing the taxes on it. Either way though, it's not something the President can really change as they are promised benefits to people who have paid in over the years. Just as you can't just take a knife to Veterans Benefits that have been promised over the years.

There just isn't a lot you can cut in terms of that stuff at this point without telling a bunch of old people who have been promised these funds and paid in over their lifetime to go fuck themselves.

This is pretty interesting:



I know it's wikipedia, but I remember the NYT article and I'm sure someone's linked it either earlier in this thread or in the Recession one.

So, just raise taxes back to 2000 levels, undo all the spending changes, and we're almost back to the halcyon days of the late 1990s! :D

So the plan is to send out a notice letting older people know their Social Security checks they depend on and that they have built their life around is going to be cut in half? It's real easy to say "lets just cut Medicare and Social Security" when you aren't looking at the real life results of that decision.

All the government's historical data is here, btw: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/

BUT THINK OF THE TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT WE WILL BE LOSING.

...who needs to the trickle down effect when we can just leverage up and then have the explosion up effect of the bailout (which now the GOP is against the 'tax' to recover those funds....bwahahahahahahahah)

So what are you going to cut to get to 1.6 trillion?

No, but you can immediately begin to phase out Medicare & SocSec for people under a certain age, and realize long term spending savings that way.

...and cut a shit-ton of smaller budget items, (DHS, TSA, DEA, I'm looking at you first) while you're at it.

It's apparently really easy to say that about defense spending as well.

Why? If they're that small a portion of the budget, cutting them will be only the proverbial drop in the bucket. I'd rather we vacated Iraq and Afghanistan and cut that defense budget down to get bigger bang for our buck.

the fact that there's a payroll cap on the FICA tax is fucking ridiculous

So what do older people do then? Work till they are 90? Pay $4000 a month for health insurance if they can get it?

What do you foresee happening to the country when our older population has no income and no access to health care? I guess having them all die early does take the burden off our health care system.

You could also just make all income fall under FICA so that people can't hide behind "dividends". For instance I don't pay the full FICA that I would otherwise have to because as an S-Corp, we just mark a percent of my income as dividends vs wages.

A couple of points. One, phasing out Medicare and SS will exacerbate the short term deficit by quite a bit. You're right that it's projected to reduce long term costs, but if the young stop paying into the system that will add hundreds of billions to the yearly deficit for many years.

Two, how do you phase out Medicare? And I ask that honestly. I disagree with phasing out SS, but I at least understand how private accounts are supposed to fill that gap. What replaces Medicare? How do we provide medical coverage to those too old for private insurance to cover?

Medicare is indeed a much bigger fiasco to deal with than SS.

In theory, I think the private sector could come up with a way to be profitable on insuring the elderly if it had to fill a void. It'd almost certainly require hospital costs in general to come down to non-bullshit levels, but it's theoretically doable.

edit: And yes, either of these ARE long term deals, that require a helluva lot of planning and number crunching, as well as increasing the deficit over the short-term. But frankly, any reasonable solution to the budget these days needs to be long-term, and probably includes some short-term shittyness. There is no quick fix.

You have to start somewhere, and it's a helluva lot easier to show at least a SIGN of fiscal discipline by removing the smaller, porky bullshit.

I don't mean to be bitchy here, but there's a pretty big gap between theory and practice there.

And if I had an actual workable answer fully backed by numbers and statistical evidence, I'd be running for office right about now.

Fact of the matter is, Medicare in its current form simply isn't sustainable, and I in no way support taxing the shit out of the rich to cover it. 'Bout the only other way is moving a good chunk of people out of it.

problem is there's no alternative to move them into.

private sector will never be able to do it - if they brought costs down for old people they'd be blasted about maintaining high costs for everyone else for no reason, unless they used old people as a "loss leader" and raised the rates on the rest of us, which nobody would support either.

That's basically how it is now, except it's the government we're paying (an institution not known for managing money well, ever), and not the insurance companies (an institution known for being money grubbing bastards, but at least knows how to manage their money - and I'll freely admit that's about the only good thing I could even think of saying for 'em).

+800 gazillion

except see steve's point right above.

i'd rather that my healthcare be controlled by what is essentially a non-profit (government) than a for-profit (insurance company). Call me crazy, but I feel that a non-profit has less incentive to worry about money and thus is less likely to cut corners on care to save themselves $$ than a for-profit company where my care is eating away at the number of vacation homes the CEO can buy.

I totally agree Medicare is unsustainable, but I don't think kicking off seniors is the answer, nor is it politically possible. Eventually the answer is either cutting what's provided or reimbursing at a lower rate. Neither of those will be popular, but goods and services are the problem and goods and services have to be a part of the solution.

And getting the blue hell beaten out of you at the polls. As would anyone who advocated touching the the third rail of all third rails.

Or did you miss the poll from last week or so that showed securing Medicare & SS among the top priorities of both Republican and Democratic voters? And Independents? And that both actually ranked higher than cutting the deficit.
http://people-press.org/report/584/p...riorities-2010

LOL, trust me, that's not it. Bankrupting the country & destroying anything resembling competent health care isn't something I picture being popular in the long run.

I guess it could be a big plus for people intentionally trying to do accomplish both but I have to believe that's ultimately a minority. (Willing accomplices, the proverbial "useful idiots" notwithstanding)

Oh hell, lemme run. I know damn well I'd set new records for largest defeat in history.

lmao - you actually believe that would be the result of REFORMING healthcare, as opposed to the result of leaving it like it is now (but replace "bankrupting the country" with "bankrupting anyone unlucky enough to get seriously ill who doesn't make 6 figures").

it honestly surprises me still that there are people out there who are either so close-minded, OR so unintelligent and unable to look at the freely available data and see what is going on and what will happen if things continue on their present path (note that I said OR, feel free to pick whichever you feel applies - note also this is a general statement and not intended to apply to you in particular jon) that they believe this.

it's impossible to have rational discussion with irrational people.

You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

You don't have an answer and neither does anyone else because there isn't one. Old people get sick and cost a lot of money to keep alive. It's just impossible for private health insurance companies to make a profit on them (trust me, they would be doing it if it was possible).

The option you are proposing is to have a country full of elderly people who can't go to the doctor. While letting these people die from lack of health care would shrink the deficit, it's not going to get much public support. No one wants to see their Mom or Grandma die because they can't see doctors.

It's not REform, described properly it's health DEform.


Once again, we've got one of those statements that we can both use equally well. How anyone with an IQ consisting of three digits can believe there's anything on the table that's represents anything other than an abject national disaster both financially & medically eludes me just as thoroughly as ... I dunno, flat-earthers in 2010 (hard to pick anything as the definitive "I can't believe that anybody X", y'know?)

I don't get it. All these countries with national health care systems kick the living shit out of us in virtually every health statistic. They live longer than us and have a higher survival rate as an infant. Isn't the whole purpose of health care to live longer and healthier?

We're not even talking like some "brand new plan nobody has ever done before."

We're talking "something other countries have done and have been more successful doing than what our current system is."

it's a fucking no-brainer.

I, for one, would welcome our insurance overlords. I'd like to submit myself for work on their death panels.

SI

I was happy to see this cut in the proposed budget. Farm subsidies are out of control and really need to be curtailed. I would know. I actually create the applications that pay out many of these subsidies. I do think the savings should go directly to deficit reduction rather than rerouting the funds.

Obama proposes cutting farm subsidies, boosting school lunch | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Too bad that will never make it through Congress.

We'll see. I think it may make it through in some modified form. There's just far too many subsidies going to people and businesses who have no reason to be subsidized other than free money.

Too many Senators from farming states.

This is one of the reasons I think the freeze is a stupid gimmick. Congress isn't going to follow Obama's wishes to the letter and vetoing the omnibus over a few billion dollars is counterproductive. It's almost guaranteed to be "another broken promise".

As FOFC's resident farmer, I'll come out in support of these cuts. Looking at the details, it's merely cutting the annual fixed payment by $10,000 and tightening the eligibility. Grain and cotton farmers have been overly subsidized.

Oh, and MBBF, you may be interested to know that our latest dairy bailout (forget the name) check was around $19K and was spent the first day we had it. It helped, but it was negligible. Probably helped out some really small guys quite a bit. For perspective, that $19K would supply us with protein meal for about two weeks. Protein meal is just one of many ingredients we feed our cows (but the most expensive).

Honestly, most farmers who run their own farms are well-aware of the loopholes in subsidies and know where the abuses occur. Farms that are your size and smaller aren't the real problems.

Bingo.

Big day today in Illinois. Primaries for the party nominations for Obama's old seat. Should be interesting to see which candidates emerge and what it means for that race in November.

I'm somewhat surprised the Tea Party folks can't gain traction in IL. Kirk may win by 30+ points. Despite all the bloviating the GOP has had much more success recently with moderates.

I haven't voted yet today, so let me write you in for Cook County Board President. Even a demented walrus could do that job better than the incumbent.

Not that I'm calling you a demented walrus.


I'm pretty sure it'll be Kirk vs. Giannoulias. It honestly hasn't been all that interesting of a race so far. The teabaggers haven't gotten themselves organized enough to oppose Kirk and Giannoulias has used enough of his connections to keep his advantages.

The full race has potential to be interesting. Kirk will need to get out every single GOP vote to combat the Democratic machine, so if there's any upswell of Tea Party opposition to him, that alone probably costs him the seat. On the other hand, Giannoulias' family's bank is having problems, and of course the state is in terrible shape financially, so it'll be interesting to see if Kirk can get some headway hammering on that.

Hooray for not living in Cook. :)



I have a feeling the 'real' election will get ugly fast. But yes, it's been surprisingly quiet for the moment.

Just got back from voting. Turnout looks to be real low. The counter showed 68 when I put my ballot through. I voted Hoffman over Giannoulias and will probably vote Kirk over both.

The big race for many is the Cook County President seat which has the ability to really effect daily lives in the city. Property taxes and sales taxes are the two huge issues. Stroger is likely on his way out of town.

They actually make you leave town if you're a losing incumbent? Rough gig.

that's going to be an effing disaster i predict

It's a lot tougher for cities and states, who don't have the same leeway to spend money they don't have. They actually have to make difficult cuts.

It's not particularly amazing that citizens are a little weary of corrupt/ineffective governments taking more of their money when they've so horribly mishandled the money they've already taken. It's also not surprising that people are wary of property tax increases when so many are having trouble getting by on their mortgages as is.

Hopefully the people in this city will help with the parks. That's a much better solution for everyone than having to collectively pay for such services way above actual cost.

As for the police/firefighters - those positions have been shredded all across the U.S. We've had a pretty bad recession. I think Colorado Springs can get by without flowers for a while.