If your picture is current, you are under 30. If that is true, keep your post #27 and read it again on your 50th birthday. You will be TOTALLY embarresed at how unrealistic you are. You are suggesting that you can change human nature, That simply is not going to happen.

I'm not impressed by a 5% reduction over 10 years in the much bloated defense budget. Although, going republican would mean continued increased spending in that area.

Regarding the $4T deficit reduction over 10 years; what does that mean? If the current budget deficit is $1.3T and no reduction means a debt increase of $13T over 10 years, does this mean the debt only increases by $9T to over the next 10 years instead? We should be able to do better than that.

I wonder if the increase in economic activity that results from a redistribution of wealth from folks who shelter it to folks who will spend it is taken into account. Probably not, otherwise the president would have to explain that and actually use the term "redistribution." Which the republicans would proceed to pounce on.

I have always been amazed by the fact that two people with a Phd in Economics could have diametrically opposite views on economic issues. Obviously it is not an exact science. I don't even try to understand because statisics can lie and liars can write statistics as the saying goes. I can only go by what MOST economists are saying that cutting spending will cause an economey to slow and spending will speed it up. Right now we need to speed up the economey and once we are humming full steam the deficits will deminish because of the higher revenue to the FED. Naturally right now it would help if those people who would never miss a few thousand from the income would pay a little more. It would certainly help the FED to meet its obligations and keep money in circulation. Remember that money is like manure -- it's no good unless it's spread around.

Quote mauiman58:We are in a global economy, and every one is competing for money. The best and the brightest and the best negotiators get the most money.

Sorry, Pirate Television.

Thom, Al Gore disagrees with you about judicial review on page 51 (IIRC) of The Assault on Reason.

Judicial review exists because that is the judicial branch's check on abuse of power by the legislative and executive branches. If it didn't have that power, no one could reverse unconstitutional actions by the other two branches.

The basis of judicial review is that when there is a conflict between laws or between a law and an action, the court must decide who's right. The U.S. Constitution overrides U.S. law. I don't care what Thomas Jefferson said--no one's infallible--if the courts couldn't stop the implementation of unconstitutional laws and unconstitutional actions, then the Constitution would be a thing of wax. It would have all the force of a polite recommendation.

Think of a President who decides that, in spite of Amendment 20, he's going to run for a third term. Judicial review allows the courts to take him off the ballot on the grounds that it's unconstitutional. This process forces the rule of law on the other two branches. Abraham Lincoln's abuse of power (suspending habeas corpus) was stopped by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Harry Truman's usurpation of power (taking over the steel mills) was stopped by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Without judicial review, Congress would have to explicitly outlaw every possible act that a public official could use his office for that's supposed to be outside his constitutional powers. And since no ex post facto laws are allowed, if they didn't think of it before the official did it, that official would get away with an unconstitutional action.

And the argument that abuse of power is supposed to cause the people to sweep the corrupt out of office and replace them with legislators that will immediately reverse the bad laws is unfounded. we had to have a war before slavery was outlawed. State-level referenda present the problem slightly differently, because the legislature doesn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment. Proposition 8 in California has been reversed by a court, before anyone put a counteracting referendum on the ballot. Amendment 2 in Colorado was prevented, by a court, from being enforced, and no one has yet put a measure on the ballot (in 20 years) to get that junk out of our state constitution. Democracy obviously cannot afford to wait for popular sentiment to force a change.

The Supreme Court has gone too far in using a necessary power, but that's not a reason to eliminate the power any more than it would make sense to get rid of Congress's power to pass laws in retaliation for passing some bad ones. It's a reason to fix the process of selecting members of the court.

Congress can regulate the courts, and that should include prerequisites for nomination. The Senate used to just look at the facts of a judge's career and debate in the nominee's absence, but that's been replaced by the pointless committee interview where the nominee refuses to answer any questions. We can start there. Debate in Congress has been ruined by abuse of the filibuster that doesn't require debate, and when debate does occur it consists of floor speeches that no one attends.

Again, I do care for those in need but I STRONGLY object to elected officials using tax dollars for this to the extent that is going on right now. All the policians are doing is buying votes with tax dollars, you'll never convince me that they actually care about the people they are "helping", they are just throwing money at them to buy their votes. And make sure they stay dependant on the goverment so they will continue to get their vote. If you want to see where that process goes when it is unchecked, look at what is going on in Greece right now. The left wing politicians over there have gotten so many people dependant on goverment handouts that they are rioting in the streets when even the left wingers finally had to say that the party is over, we have run out of money.

The thing I think you are missing is the concept of competition. We are in a global economy, and every one is competing for money. The best and the brightest and the best negotiators get the most money. I doubt if you like that fact, but that is reality. So you can get mad at me for pointing that out (cutting off the head of the messanger usually doesn't do a whole lot of good) or you can deal with the unpleasant realities of the situation. Your choice.

The phrase "cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years" is misleading, no matter how common its use. It sounds like the deficit will decrease incrementally over the course of ten years, and that the tenth year's spending will be $4 trillion less than this year's. It would be better for everyone to phrase it as "cuts the ten-year deficit by $4 trillion". Of course, the fact that policy makers constantly switch between annual and decadal figures makes all budget discussion very confusing.

"Compassion?" That's all I asked you for!

We have an army of intelectually underprivileged, who are just stupid, because they got underprivileged parents.

Your blaming them is as cold as a common gangster's mind. The only difference is: You don't break the law. But you right-wingers aren't any kinder.

Quote mauiman58:You can't expect the goverment to bail you out of your own stupidity and irresponsibilities. You can't expect those who take care of themselves to bail out those who don't.

Just to remind you of the brutality of your argumentation.

Again: We have an army of red-necks, who are just underprivileged, because they've been born red-necks. I feel like doing something about it, caring for them. If you hate this idea, your mind is just GROSS to my mind. Sorry, I can't take that. On the long run it makes me upset...... I truly had to take vacation from you, for I couldn't take you any longer!

Wow! It was a blast! Randy Montana is the best, i really had fun during his tour here in detroit. I'm looking forward on seeing his one of his concerts again! Thanks for posting this schedule, 70-521 // / 70-565 // / 70-567 // / 70-672 // / 98-366 // / mb2-632 // / mb6-819 // / 70-292 // /

Wow! It was a blast! Randy Montana is the best, i really had fun during his tour here in detroit. I'm looking forward on seeing his one of his concerts again! Thanks for posting this schedule, 70-685 // / / 70-511 // / 70-573 // / 70-667 // / 70-686 // / 70-448 // / 70-513 // / 70-516 // /

Wow! It was a blast! Randy Montana is the best, i really had fun during his tour here in detroit. I'm looking forward on seeing his one of his concerts again! Thanks for posting this schedule, 70-528 // / 70-693 // / 70-272 // / 70-299 // / 70-403 // / 70-561 // / 70-671 // / mb6-818 // /