Archive for Saturday, July 3, 2010

Government changes would dismay America’s founders

July 3, 2010

Advertisement

This weekend, millions of Americans will be celebrating the Fourth of July.

The big question, however, is what percentage of these millions will be giving the proper degree of attention and thought to what the Fourth actually celebrates — the unanimous approval by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, to adopt the Declaration of Independence — and what this has meant to this country and its citizens.

This action eventually triggered a call for a new form of government with those invited to participate in a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” The convention opened on May 14, 1787. Delegates voted to discard the articles and draw up a new constitution that went into effect on March 4, 1789.

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution states:

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Noble thoughts followed by seven articles outlining the new democratic government. Ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1791. Seventeen additional amendments were adopted between 1795 and the most recent amendment ratified in 1992.

All of these documents, from the July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent amendments, combine to authorize more freedoms and more rights for U.S. citizens than those living in any other country enjoy.

This is what the Fourth of July means to the United States and its more than 300 million citizens.

Chances are, those who labored to draft the Declaration of Independence, as well as the U.S. Constitution, would be shocked to see the degree of encroachment our government has made into the “rules,” freedoms and limits imposed on or granted to citizens and the government.

First, there are those who don’t think they have to follow the wording of the Constitution. They say the Constitution is an old, nice-sounding document but it is out of date and irrelevant to today’s society. This has been a central matter of debate on the nomination and approval of individuals to serve as justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, this country has far too many judges who think their role is to interpret the Constitution or make the law rather than follow the law.

This runs counter to what those who drafted the Constitution had in mind, but growing numbers in our society, as well as too many judges, want to create their own rules.

Just as those involved in putting the Constitution together would be shocked by the manner in which the document has been watered down or interpreted, they also would be shocked by the manner in which current President Obama has taken it upon himself to try to take control of this country.

He has exercised executive powers, paid no attention to the wishes of the majority of Americans, created various “czars,” taken control of major industries, financial institutions, health care and education and placed this country and its citizens in the highest debt in the nation’s history. And he isn’t done yet.

The calls for massive legislation outlined in thousands of pages of legal mumbo-jumbo that our lawmakers approved even though they acknowledge they have not read what the laws call for. One current Democratic leader acknowledged “we” really won’t know what a new law calls for, or the consequences of the new law, until it is enacted and we have to live with it.

And she got by with this explanation. The current administration thinks it can do or try to do whatever it wishes — whatever the eventual consequences. It appears all they care about is getting re-elected and they are using government payouts to try to win votes and popularity.

Little attention is given to the damages and sure-to-come personal sacrifices imposed by the national debt. That is for someone else to solve, not the current officeholders who sought election for the purpose of “fundamentally” changing this country.

This is not what those who put together the Constitution and those who approved the document had in mind.

It is frightening to consider how many original “freedoms” have been weakened or changed and how many limitations imposed on actions of the government have been ignored or abandoned.

On this Fourth of July weekend, Americans might spend at least a minute or two and wonder about the future and what freedoms their children and grandchildren may have 25 or 50 years from now, the power of future presidents, the ability of Supreme Court justices and other judges to make law rather than obey and follow the U.S. Constitution, and what position in the world of nations the United States may occupy.

Just because this nation has enjoyed a proud and distinguished record over the past 234 years is no guarantee it will continue for the next “X” number of years.

The celebration of the Fourth of July is more than just having a hot dog, fireworks, parades and family reunions. There’s a lot riding on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution even though many in today’s society consider these documents out of date and not applicable in today’s world.

Comments

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

quite correct.

i especially enjoyed this sleight of hand: "This action (the declaration of independence, july 4, 1776) eventually triggered a call for a new form of government with those invited to participate in a convention for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” The convention opened on May 14, 1787."

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

It's not a new thing.... the tea party. Republicans are pulling the wool over the eyes of humans. Yes because people are pissed at Bush/Cheney the repubs had to come up with a different trick.

Tea Party funders are the same people who have been funding Bush republicans for the last 31 years. These funders like war mongers and bank robbers. Bush republicans STILL control the party have no fear = more wars,more blood,more innocent dead people and still more financial institutions and retirement plans to rob.

Bush republicans WANT your life and YOUR tax dollars and YOUR retirement funds. Why? Because it's been so much fun the last 31 years.

And they have proven voters to be stupid people after realizing voters pay no attention to elected officials after elections.

Then Bush republicans concluded that people must approve of their misconduct because it is so easy to get Bush republicans elected.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

Bush Republican Misconduct is something that has never been seen before but seems acceptable party misconduct.

In the early 1980s, under Reagan, regulatory changes took place that gave the S&L industry new powers and for the first time in history measures were taken to increase the profitability of S&Ls at the expense of promoting home ownership.

A history of the S&L situation can be found here:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

What is important to note about the S&L scandal is that it was the largest theft in the history of the world and US tax payers are who was robbed.

The problems occurred in the Savings and Loan industry as they relate to theft because the industry was deregulated under the Reagan/Bush administration and restrictions were eased on the industry so much that abuse and misuse of funds became easy, rampant, and went unchecked.

Additional facts on the Savings and Loan Scandal can be found here:

http://www.inthe80s.com/sandl.shtml

There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today.

Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).

Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.

Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.

Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.

Why is this acceptable republican party conduct?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

"And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

So, no, a bubble and a Ponzi scheme are not the same. But they have elements in common. Usually, however, the losers in a Ponzi scheme are simply the direct investors, the schemer’s marks. A bubble like the housing bubble can wreak havoc on all of us."

Arthur MacEwan is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a Dollars & Sense Associate.

As a direct result of the above FRAUD 11 million more americans are out of work AND those jobs are expected NOT to return. This action of fraud took down the nations economy. How in the world can republicans blame a man named Obama for a FRAUD that was perpetrated by the repub party?

Interesting reading:

If you study the facts you likely would not vote republican for several decades.

Study these facts and you will understand my position. Repubs are not repubs. They became radical right wing in 1980 and never looked back. All the while ripping apart our economy and watching millions upon millions of jobs go abroad.

The Global Economy and Reagnomics are absolute failures for the USA!!!

This is what I mean:
1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  1. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  2. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the $700 billion of bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  3. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion,place taxpayers insurance money at risk and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  4. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

Woo hoo! Haven't seen that set of links in at least 36 hours. Way to go, merrill!

md 4 years, 12 months ago

merril and moon. I can not understand how people like you can be so blind.

Corey Williams 4 years, 12 months ago

"It is frightening to consider how many original “freedoms” have been weakened or changed..."

Which freedoms, specifically? The same freedoms that our troops were fighting for in Iraq?

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Which freedoms, specifically?

Personal property freedoms Freedom to make decisions regarding the safety of my body Freedom from purchasing a corporate product Freedom to own a firearm

Neomarxist123 4 years, 12 months ago

The score is:

Liberty 275 - one mancityfooty - zero

texburgh 4 years, 12 months ago

Interesting. Republicans - Kris Kobach specifically - take away the property freedom of a landlord to rent to whomever he/she pleases with their new police issued license to rent in Fremont, NE. Republicans strive to prevent women from making decisions regarding the safety of their bodies as those Rs push abortion restrictions that make even rape, incest, and the health and safety of the mother disallowable for seeking an abortion. Republicans have worked to deregulate every industry they can and to weaken protections against monopolies - if the Republicans had their way you would have nothing BUT corporate products to buy. Who's working on weakening your "freedom to own a firearm?" Neither Republicans nor Democrats will even restrict your right to carry around automatic weapons - look at the tea party rallies!

Perhaps if you learned to use that amorphous blob of gray matter in your skull and applied it to reading and analysis instead of parroting idiots like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, you'd realize just who the real enemies of your personal freedoms are.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

you'd realize just who the real enemies of your personal freedoms are.

I know who the enemies of freedom are. The right is so obvious on so many issues I don't feel the need to point it out. The left is more insidious, and pointing out their transgressions lets them know that people still exist that do more than pander the word freedom to giggly cheerleaders that couldn't care less when it is taken from them.

As for Hannity and Beck, I listen to them as often as I listen to Olberman. That would be... never. I don't need other people to tell me what to think.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats will even restrict your right to carry around automatic weapons

Another one that doesn't know the difference between auto and semi-auto. There can't be that many people posting about guns that are too dumb to know the difference. Who are you parroting with this "automatic weapons" faux pas?.

BrianR 4 years, 12 months ago

There are many things the Founders would be dismayed about, this isn't one of those things. Actually, many of the Founding Fathers thought the union would quickly outgrow the Constitution and that a Constitutional Convention should be held periodically.

This is an ill-conceived, pathetic swipe at Obama and it reads as poorly as Merrill's responses.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

July 4th has evolved into just another day. It has lost it's meaning thanks to the nanny-state mentality of too many American citizens. It's time to start celebrating "the government knows whats better for me than I do day" instead. It may be a poor holiday, but at least you won't be a hypocrite every time you cheer some government-sponsored corporation firing off a bottle rocket.

boltzmann 4 years, 12 months ago

275 says... 'July 4 has evolved into just another day.'

No it hasn't. I feel sorry for you.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Outstanding editorial on all counts. The similarities between Barack Hussein Obama and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin are soberingly real, at least to those who are sufficiently educated to understand them.

boltzmann 4 years, 12 months ago

Ok, Mister smarter than everyone else. Instead of just making up unsupporte provocative statements, like mr. Simons, please list these similarities and be specific. I am getting tired of people just talking trash without any specifics. It is just a sign of emptiness and desperate nature of your arguments.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Nonsense! Read them both, and observe what sorts of policies they enacted in office, and how their governments functioned. So different in philosophy and realization!

BrianR 4 years, 12 months ago

Ahh, going from troll to malicious liar. Nice transition.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

Why would a country ever vote republican after these crimes against america?

  1. Bush Reagan Iran – Contra Secret Weapons Affair http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/spy.network.probe/index.html
  2. Nixon's Watergate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/index.html

  3. Bush/Cheney dropping the ball thus 9/11/01

  4. The Bush/Cheney money hole aka their multi-trillion dollar violent occupation of Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan

  5. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  6. Bush family of politicians "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

  7. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  8. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the $700 billion of bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  9. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion,place taxpayers insurance money at risk and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  10. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

  11. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% AKA The Other ENTITLEMENT Program for the Wealthy http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?

As a side note I did not vote Obama and no way in hell would I vote McCain or republican.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

The role of President Reagan in the death of Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson has never been fully exploded. Why don't you get right on that, merrill?

Robert Rauktis 4 years, 12 months ago

Yeah, things have changed. It started with Lewis and Clark. They unleashed a MASSIVELY bigger United States. Immigration and a birth rate. And technology improvements beyond the horse and written word. A mad man of the eighteeth century hadn't even a chance of recognizing this 21st century.

So why do the pseudo-pundits insist on distillation of EVERYTHING into political science?

It's like comparing pharmacology to leeches.

tantrazoid 4 years, 12 months ago

This editorial is a fine example of water carrying for the GOP. Bravo!

Kathy Getto 4 years, 12 months ago

"Unfortunately, this country has far too many judges who think their role is to interpret the Constitution or make the law rather than follow the law." === This column is too lame to dissect in detail, but this assertion is fascinating. Which judges would Dolph eliminate and why? And, the 'make law' assertion is strange. When a judge decides against your case, she/he is an activist. When the case goes in your favor, the judges are wise and competent. It depends on which side of the mirror one uses in our Alice in Wonderland society.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Valkyrie (with apologies to Wagner), if you wish to answer your own question you might begin by reading the dissents of the minority Supreme Court Justices in the Heller and McDonald cases that confirmed the right of Americans to bear arms, which is precisely what the Second Amendment says. The dissenting Justices were demonstrably dyslexic in that regard.

Peter Macfarlane 4 years, 12 months ago

When the framers were working this particular amendment, they were thinking of the need for a citizen militia. They could not have envisioned high urban crime rates from drugs, gangs, etc. and occasional mentally-unbalanaced person who blows away innocent people with a legally owned firearm. This intent of this amendment has been sufficiently distorted by the American Rifle Association so that they can argue that everybody should be armed.

After all, a bigger bloodbath when disagreements occur is more fun than perhaps getting people to behave like adults should by seeking more peaceful means of resolving disputes. And if, curious children should wind up shooting themselves or others with a legally-owned hand gun, well that's just par for the course.

Keith 4 years, 12 months ago

My right to keep and bear any muzzle loaded musket or rifle shall not be infringed. It's funny, when we hear all the claptrap about original intent, no one ever thinks to apply it to the 2nd amendment.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 4 years, 12 months ago

The tools of the times have nothing to do with "intent".

Frederic Gutknecht IV 4 years, 12 months ago

Would this citizen militia be there to protect the people from bad guys and mentally unbalanced persons? Would the "militia" leave this up to the individual and not help? Were there enough policemen to deal with these problems at that time? Are there now? Is a a mother trying to protect her children in an area of high urban crime rates, drugs and gangs allowed to protect herself and children, or simply call the police?

Do you believe that saying "a bigger bloodbath...is more fun" really makes your point? Whose fault is it when curious children bring harm upon themselves in pools, streets, kitchens, etcetera?

How do you propose to go about "getting people to behave like adults"? Inquiring minds want to know. The rest don't care. They've been systematically domesticated, set free and, seemingly encouraged, to spend feral lives wallowing in their own ignorance.

It would be better, despite the fact that it'll be so much harder, to work towards providing better education and building sustainable societies than to worry about and blame guns for our woes.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "Valkyrie (with apologies to Wagner),"

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

Obama could do a better job if he were not so concerned with bridge building. Repubs are not interested in working together. Obama is not the problem. It would not matter which democrat would have been elected the repubs would be playing the same damn game. They only want the power not economic growth,new industry or keeping americans employed.

There was a strong fiscally conservative/socially responsible candidate available.

However since the parties and the news media decided this candidate would not be a good president the voting public fell right into place. The media takes control every time then decides who can participate in each and every debate.... and this is a democracy? Have we lost our minds.

The person we voted for has substantial history of protecting consumers,keeping us informed but also understands government, economics and law.

Ralph Nader was the true fiscally conservative/socially responsible candidate available.

Darrell Lea 4 years, 12 months ago

Dear Mr. Simons - today I honestly attempted to read your piece without prejudice. I was not going to inventory your habitual gratuitous use of rhetorical questions, or play the role of grammar cop. I just read the article for what it was.

I have a hard time believing that you are really so fearful of the direction you think our country is headed. Are you really any less free today than you were in October, 2008? Do you personally know anyone who is less free under this administration than any previous administration because of any action of the federal government?

I realize that he who owns the ink enjoys the freedom of the press. However, if you are going to make such outrageous proclamations such as: "there are those who don’t think they have to follow the wording of the Constitution", "this country has far too many judges who think their role is to interpret the Constitution or make the law rather than follow the law", and "Just as those involved in putting the Constitution together would be shocked by the manner in which the document has been watered down or interpreted, they also would be shocked by the manner in which current President Obama has taken it upon himself to try to take control of this country", could you please provide some sort of example or footnote to back up your statement?

I realize that the kind of rhetoric you espoused today has been popular with elected Republicans and self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters. Perhaps this Independence Day all of us can set aside our ideologies and ambitions for a day and celebrate this country we all love and cherish without disparaging the other side. One nation, indivisible, right?

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

Back then they didn't need a nanny state. Those people who did stupid things really did die quickly, a bear would get them. Also there was a code of conduct back then, and those people who didn't follow it were ostracized. It would have been considered bad form to smoke in front of a lady, for example. Those who drank to excess didn't go around bragging about it and considering it their "right". And medical care was inexpensive, if you could get it at all. If you had something seriously wrong with you, you just died. How do you know that the founders wouldn't have loved the idea that everyone would have access to medical care? That cancer doesn't always mean a death sentence anymore? Few people had access to health care at all, rich or poor, because there just wasn't the miracle medicine we have now. How do you know that the founding fathers would have supported education and medicine just for the rich? Considering they supported universal education, I would guess they would support public schools and public health care. I'm so glad Dolph Simons can read the minds of men long dead, who lived in a different era. Come on, why shouldn't everyone have the health care that you enjoy? Why should that person who waits on you in a restaurant or cleans your house, or mows your lawn not have health care? And this coming from a man who was lucky enough to be born into a rich family.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Come on, why shouldn't everyone have the health care that you enjoy?

If everyone develops a skill so they can have a job with benefits and ponies up the $700/month they can. I've worked 30 years to be in this position, and now my taxes and my premiums will go up to pay for those too lazy to put in the work to make it on their own.

Why should that person who waits on you in a restaurant?

Because they are unskilled labor paying their dues like I did in the 80s. My wife cleans the house and I mow my own lawn.

And this coming from a man who was lucky enough to be born into a rich family.

I came from poverty you can't even begin to comprehend. I didn't stay there.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

I've always been of the opinion that it is societies job to assist the handicapped, be that handicap mental or physical. I've made that perfectly clear on at 3 occasions. This makes 4.

Now guess about something else.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

That's a good point.

Those who claim everyone should just work harder and earn more money forget that our system will always have a need for lower paid unskilled workers.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Yes, we will always need unskilled workers. We can all agree on that. Where we part ways whether a person should be rewarded for his ability or for his existence. I believe the former, you believe the latter.

I would be ashamed to be rewarded for what I didn't earn. I think everyone else capable of working should feel the same.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

It wasn't punishment when I worked entry-level jobs after leaving the military. I didn't receive free or reduced-price health insurance, but every friday they gave me money. They still give entry-level workers money every Friday as far as I know.

When you set the bar so high for employers, forcing them to pay $12+ dollars an hour plus 70% of insurance for unskilled labor, don't be surprised when those entry-level jobs go to china or India.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

You believe every American deserves to be rewarded far beyond what the constitution requires simply for existing.

Or maybe you believe something else. If you aren't ashamed of it, tell us what you do believe.

I'm guessing I was correct and you are ashamed of what you believe.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

You're wrong, on both counts.

I believe, for what it's worth, that any rational analysis of worth/compensation would not arrive at the ridiculous disparities we have today.

I believe, that since our system needs a constant supply of people willing to work at boring, menial jobs, that those people should make enough money to live on (not a luxurious amount).

I believe, that rather than a government "of, by and for the people", we have achieved a government "of, by and for the corporations and the very wealthy", and that this has distorted our system's functioning.

I believe, that CEO salary/benefits/compensation packages that offer substantial rewards regardless of performance, are outrageous, and make no sense.

I believe, that corporate bankruptcies that allow companies to "restructure", benefiting banks and attorneys, allowing CEO's to walk away with plenty, and hurting everyone else in the chain, are not good for this country.

I believe, that when productivity goes up and wages do not, that workers are being taken advantage of, and not properly compensated.

I believe, that laws allowing corporations to locate a small office in another country and send profits there, while earning them here, and avoid paying taxes on them, are not good for this country.

I believe, that whatever his other flaws, Clinton (and Congress during his administration) produced the only 4 years in the last 35 without budget deficits, and therefore was doing something very right economically.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Not bad. Your first three paragraphs are quite reasonable. You don't seem to think unskilled labor deserves free health care, outrageous pay or most of the things experienced skilled workers have earned. Kudos for that, and for a brief moment, mea culpa.

But then you take a left turn for the worse ranting about executive pay, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, executives, CEOs and other bigwigs make lots lots of money, but you seem to think they should not make disparately more than unskilled workers. CEOs are usually contracted on their previous performance and paid accordingly. Your rant concerning the disparity at bare minimum insinuates that entry-level workers should be paid a higher rate not because of their ability, but merely because of the inequity you perceive. This is a fine example of believing people should be rewarded based on their existence and not their performance.

I have to take back my mea culpa at this point.

As for Clinton and budget deficits, you'd do better to thank Bill Gates, Microsoft and the PC for igniting a decade long financial explosion in what was a newish industry. Without tech, the 90s would have been mostly recession. I liked Clinton as much as the next guy, but he wasn't responsible for the good financial times he presided over.

As for offshoring, when unions drive up the price of labor, what do you expect will happen?

Productivity... I work straight commission. I make as much money as I am productive. Unfortunately most people don't have the fortitude to assign a value to their time and choose instead to allow others to do it for them. I have no soft spot in my heart for wage-slaves.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

The problem with executive and CEO compensation is precisely that the contracts are NOT based on performance, but offer guaranteed (and very generous) benefits regardless of it.

So, the CEO who runs the company into the ground and is fired walks away with a generous severance package.

Doesn't make sense to me.

If we're to have a meritocracy, then pay at all levels would shift dramatically. But we don't have that at all right now.

What did the CEO's of the automobile companies do that warranted their multi-million salaries (the ones that ran the companies into bankruptcy)?

If the tech industry bubble is enough to explain the Clinton success, why are they the only 4 years in the last 35 that we haven't run deficits?

The practice I'm referring to is the one that "offshores" the profits, which has nothing to do with unions.

So you think everyone should work on commission? Then, who'd be available to do all of the jobs that aren't structured that way?

texburgh 4 years, 12 months ago

More foolishness.

Your premiums aren't going up because of the reform bill - they have been going up precisely because we did not reform and you are paying for uninsured folk to get their care in emergency rooms. Blue Cross/Blue Shield actually took out a full page ad in the KC Star announcing that premiums would decrease by as much as 35% once the bill is implemented - BC/BS was praising the plan. (Skeptic that I am, I will wait to see those decreases since I have no confidence that the insurance industry will voluntarily lower anything - but that was BC/BS talking, not Obama or me or some leftist.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Yeah, insurance corporations are going to fully cover 30 million people and everyone with pre-existing conditions for the pittance America puts into medicare.

They have you, hook, line and sinker.

BC/BS was praising the plan.

If the government mandated every American buy something from me or a hundred fellow corporations I'd buy a newspaper and run front page ads every day telling you how wonderful the plan is. Think.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

And it's too bad that your wonderful corporations took all the jobs away that used to pay decently, not richly, but had insurance. So if all these people who would rather be working in a factory, than a Burger King went to school and got the same skills you do, how long do you think you'd have a job? Why have we created an economy that requires a bachelor's degree just to make a living. It's only been this way for the last 20 years. Even in the '80's people could get a job to support their family without going to college. I realize you consider these people lazy, but many are working 2 jobs to make ends meet, and they still don't have insurance.

pace 4 years, 12 months ago

Sad comment when government action to protect the health of children and all the citizens is called unamerican. Old story, when those in power call consumer protection and environmental regulation unamerican. Then to call on the ghosts of men and women who gave their life to free people and create a government of the people to support their own desire to see control of the masses instead of the lifting. Anti education, antilabor, ant-reform is not the path our founding fathers would want for us as a country. To use those coat tails to promote their own elitist right wing power structure is unamerican. To call laws to protect the middle class and the poor from financial rape, legal mumbo-jumbo.
The rich aren't the one's out of work, under paid, or making sacrifices. I don't want to see young people die to keep the oil cheap for the SUV, I don't want to see the history of this country perverted into some excuse for not passing legislation to protect it's own people over corporate desires.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

An article about "the proper degree of attention and thought to what the Fourth actually celebrates," and you call our President "barry o"? Are you for real?

He is the President of the United States of America, elected by a majority of voters. Show a little respect on this weekend, you un-patriotic, anti-American fool. Like a communist or a member of the Taliban, you believe in nothing but a one party system. Vote correctly indeed. Who are you to say your fellow Americans didn't "vote correctly"? Your words prove that you aren't a real American, since you stand against the things that make this country great. You disgust me, you and your 40 IQ.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

We don't want your dictatorship, lg40. None of us will stand for it. That's the American way. Guess what, you have to share this country with people who believe in community and care for their fellow citizens. Go find a wilderness somewhere and become a hermit.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

you un-patriotic, anti-American fool

LOL. That's like the pot calling the grass black.

Also, you probably aren't the right person to comment on anyone's IQ. As for your disgust, Mr Lawrenceguy40 probably wears it as a badge of honor.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

I would gladly match my IQ against your's or IQ40 guy's any day of the week. Don't begin to believe that just because you have a Clash album cover as your avatar that you are all that cool or bright.

As far as the whole pot / grass (?) thing goes, if you can demonstrate where I have been un-patriotic or un-American in my posts, then you will have a case. Until then, you are just a fool defending a moron.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

I would gladly match my IQ against your's

You would lose. You barely think beyond the tip of your nose.

if you can demonstrate where I have been un-patriotic or un-American in my posts

You spent 8 years as unpatriotic as the person you are accusing now. What you call "patriotism" is in reality nothing but cheerleading for a failing executive in the white house because he has a (D) after his name. Rah rah. Go team. Hypocrite.

Yes, I think you are that shallow.

fancy80 4 years, 12 months ago

are we to believe then, beatrice, that you never called President Bush a derrogatory name? I take offense to you calling someone who doesn't agree with our current President's actions, an un-patriotic, anti-american fool. You are a typical Hipocrat, who spent 8 of the 9 last years ridiculing everything about the President of the United States, but now expects everyone to respect the current one. Are YOU for real???

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 12 months ago

Mark Twain: "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Our founding fathers would also be dismayed by a demonstration of a home owner with an AK-47, thong underwear, American conservatives' disdain for educated "elites" and the French, and the internet.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

funny.

I don't agree, but it is still a good response.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Washington would have preferred M16s. The ammo is easier to carry.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 12 months ago

How horrified would they be at the thought that huge multi-national corporate interests have rights of speech?

At the consolidation of the free press in to the hands a few corporate entities?

Or electronic voting machines that do not produce a verifiable record of votes cast?

Or the "Patriot Act?"

At george w. bush and dick cheney and all the abuses of their administration?

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

And where would a person without a license to own an automatic weapon legally purchase an AK47? Are you bright enough to know there is a difference between a true AK47 and a cosmetic copy with semi-automatic action? Probably not. It's an assault rifle, right? Just like your father's 30.06 hunting rifle. Except it looks scarier. That's reason enough to ban them isn't it? They look scary therefore Americans shouldn't be allowed to own them.

It would be funny if it wasn't such a sad commentary on how quickly people with utter ignorance regarding a subject will disregard the constitution to enforce their mistakes.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Dowser, do you think that that urban crime and mentally imbalanced individuals didn't exist in the late 18th century? Do you not understand that the Bill of Rights exists in order to protect individual freedoms, one of which is the right to bear arms? The Second Amendment either says what it says or it doesn't. You apparently believe in tandem with those who have no interest in what the Constitution says, but only in interpreting it in order to achieve one or more predetermined social goals.

uncleandyt 4 years, 12 months ago

The recent Supreme Court ruling was for the benefit of the gun makers. Sorry, trigger-huggers, they don't care about you or your rights.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Do you not understand that the world in 1776 was rather different from the world in which we live now?

That we face new and different challenges than the founders did?

That the original Constitution, etc. was written not in a vacuum, but in a social/cultural context?

That in order to apply it today we must in fact interpret it in order to apply it?

That if we interpret it strictly, "arms" would mean muskets, not automatic weapons?

Etc.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, anyone would be dismayed at the thought of you wearing thong underwear. Cool it.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Quit projecting your fantasies, weirdo.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "Beatrice, anyone would be dismayed at the thought of you wearing thong underwear. Cool it."

Olympics 4 years, 12 months ago

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area... The onion nails it again...

"Area man passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be"

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

boltzmann nice points.

Poor article by any standard. No support for opinion and the statement. "This is not what those who put together the Constitution and those who approved the document had in mind." was in my opinion the worst. It suggests that Mr. Simon some how has posthumous mind reading powers and if that were true he would unlikely be working for LJ World. I did appreciate putting the preamble in the article although he should have stuck to one point the supreme Court justices with facts to support his opinion they are over wielding their power; or the other point President Obama is over wielding his power with supported facts. Or reconstruct the whole column to be Anti big government in an overall better way, with facts to support opinion. Maybe Mr. Simon should look into debate classes to help him articulate his opinions to do more than preach to the choir.

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

Here is a rabble rousing point for all the my Right to Bear Arms friends the Preamble of the the constitution states it is the responsibility of government to insure domestic Tranquility, then later in the constitution under the bill of rights it declares the right to bear arms. So which is more important??? The Preamble is in essence the what we want our government to do with the seven article outlining the new democratic government the how to get it done. Then the Bill of Rights followed. Some one else I forget who said the right to throw my fist forward ends right before the other guys nose. How does the government reconcile someones right to bear arms with some one else's rights to domestic Tranquility and general Welfare. And remember if there was no one abusing the rights in the first place no one would have a problem. Unfortunately a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch.

Mike Ford 4 years, 12 months ago

usual rant by Herr Bigpants Dolph to get the waters stirred and dummies arguing. Lawrenceguy40, how are your freedoms gone? they aren't... been to any pawn or gun shop and seen the 9,000 varieties of assault weapons available... President Obama sure wants your guns....not.... . What's been lost in all of this year long hyperbole of teaparty and dumblican bs is how the volume of dummies can attempt to drown out a voice of reason... How these dummies can ignore a systematic dismantling of programs intended to get people on their feet and going again and call concern permanent welfare.... taxes pay for roads, services, and healthcare in other western countries. Unfortunately, from the 17th century to the 19th century the U.S.A. got the intellectually underwhelming immigrants from western Europe who wrap everything in guns and bibles and ignore how their house is burning and stop anyone like President Obama from putting out the fire. Europe do you want your bible toting fear mongering fasicts back? You know the ones who killed women as witches in Salem, the ones who massacred Pequots and took their lands as divine intervention and still act like everyone else's beliefs and opinions should lockstep with theirs. Please take them back....

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

9,000 varieties of assault weapons available

LOL. Zero are legally available unless you have a license that you can't get.

President Obama sure wants your guns....not

"The questionnaire asked: "Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?"

Obama's campaign answered: "Yes."

Obama's response to an earlier 1996 questionnaire from the same group has the same statement of support for a sweeping ban on handguns."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-forgets-w.html

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

Here is a Constitutional what if? The 14th amendment is sighted as what gives corporations rights as citizens. Which would support Mr. Simons position of Justice interpretations creating law (not a new problem). So could a corporation run for public office as a citizen? President Coco-Cola?

I must admit this article did cause me to review the Constitution and for that thank you. Happy 4 of July every one!

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Yes, he is an "idiot." What an intelligent observation.

independant1 4 years, 12 months ago

Let's be fair about it.

And the previous 43 idiots.

pace 4 years, 12 months ago

They should do a sitcom based on the idea of a McCain/Palin rule. Better fantasy than if it had really happened.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

I doubt McCain would have pushed for and signed a law requiring American Citizens to purchase a commercial product from a corporation or pay an additional tax. McCain wins that one hands down.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Mr. Simons, you repeat unthinkingly the axiomatic credo of the opposition: "our rights have been eroded." But what rights do you have in mind? Our freedom of religion has been expanded, not eroded. Our freedom of speech and of the press have been expanded, not eroded. Voter rights have expanded over the centuries--including in ways the Founding Fathers never envisioned (for women, for blacks, for native Americans, for non-landowners). Reasonable regulation has been one of the duties of the Federal government from the very beginning. More people now have more opportunities for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as the Declaration of Independence put it, than the Founding Fathers imagined. And all this is thanks to the American people, who have elected to government and the courts individuals with the wisdom to interpret the Constitution by its spirit rather than a narrow reading of its words. Let's celebrate America on this holiday, Mr. Simons, instead of running our country down in such an unpatriotic way!

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 12 months ago

Reasonable discourse and objectivity seems to be impossible to achieve in politics today, even though I think most people would prefer it.

I am starting to think it is like drinking alcohol. At first, it is a lot of fun. Over time, it is guaranteed that you are going to look and act stupid and wonder why you ever started drinking in the first place.

I am looking around at politics today and it looks like loserville and Dolph is tending bar.

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 12 months ago

It is now safe to assume which side of the political circus the editors and publishers of the Journal-World ascribe to. Wonder if Mr. Simons routinely listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Mark R. Levin?

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, my point was, obviously, that such a dismal fantasy couldn't be projected. What was weird was your referring to thong underwear in the first place. On the other hand, given your professed admiration for B.J. Clinton, perhaps it wasn't so weird after all.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "On the other hand, given your professed admiration for B.J. Clinton, perhaps it wasn't so weird after all."

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Boltzmann and Voevoda, the primary similarity between Obama and Lenin is Obama's belief in Marxist socialism. The key tenet of Marxism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" describes Obama precisely when he has sought to "spread the wealth" through the various wealth-redistribution schemes he has so far attempted to foist on the free citizens of this country. Another striking similarity between Obama and Lenin is their strong philosophical commitment to their radical beliefs, their determination to prevail, and their view that the end justifies the means. (Obama didn't defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries by accident; it was one of the most brutally Machiavellian political campaigns in our history.) When Obama said before the 2008 election that his goal was to "fundamentally transform America," he was deadly serious - and meant it just as seriously as Lenin did when he said, "The goal of socialism is communism." Another Lenin quote that Obama has already demonstrated is quite consistent with his philosophy and conduct in office is: "It's true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed." Still another, which has now become Obama's defining characteristic, is "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." As many faculty-lounge Marxists do, Obama professes to believe that totalitarian Marxism as practiced in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and elsewhere was or is wrong, but that Marxist socialism has simply never been "given the chance to succeed" in a non-totalitarian environment. The fact that he has never in his life held down a real job in the private sector makes it all the more difficult for him to understand that given human nature and the inherent human drive to succeed, the only way Marxism can ever be practiced is through loss of almost all freedoms and rule by totalitarian dictatorship. Lenin didn't care about that problem. As soon as he could he oppressed a great number of his fellow Russians viciously. Given Obama's expressed desire for government to control every aspect of our health care, our business and personal use of energy, our ability to keep what we earn without confiscatory taxation, our ability to live as free Americans without in effect working for the government our entire adult lives in order to pay off mammoth deficits incurred through outrageously profligate government spending, what we can listen to on the radio (the "Fairness Doctrine," to be rolled out again soon), and even what we eat (that's next; if you doubt me, you haven't been following his wife's major obsession), he obviously doesn't care much either. As Lenin said, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expediency." It's quite clear now after one and one-half years that Obama believes and practices that daily.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Almost all of your post can be applied to Republicans like Bush/Cheney, with minor changes.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Cato_the_elder, you just proved that you don't know anything about Lenin or Obama. Try reading both of their works, and then studying their records. Don't just apply Cold War cliches about the Soviet Union to Obama. Obama is certainly not a Marxist, much less a Leninist.

Larry Bauerle Jr. 4 years, 12 months ago

I'm guessing the authors would be pretty stunned that women and blacks get to vote, as well.

fuel_for_the_fire 4 years, 12 months ago

I'm always a fan of dry wit; thanks for the laugh out loud moment nickhawk.

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

Nor from Capitalist/Fascist agenda. Because Patriots true or false are people who must come to common ground in order to live peaceably. Which is why the United States of America's blue print for democracy is our greatest export. I dislike it when people try to say someone else's beliefs are unpatriotic because there not there own beliefs. We are all patriotic because we care! The reason for state governments united under a federal government is because people are diffrent and believe diffrent things and have diffrent needs to which their state government should represent. Someones Opinion of government in Louisiana would be different from someones Opinion in Wyoming with neither opinion being wrong. There is NO Patent for Patriots.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Promoting the general welfare of the people is making sure they have health care. The constitution used to say that only property holding men were real citizens, but citizenship has been extended to the rest of us, and we aren't giving it up to you tea party radicals.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

making sure they have health care

You spelled "making sure they purchase health insurance from a corporation" wrong.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

I've shown you the health care is constitutional, what is your constitutional argument that it isn't?

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

I think they would have been dismayed by Sarah Palin, and I think John McCain actually knew a couple of them personally. I think.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Tomatogrower, the notion that the "promote the general Werlfare" language in the Preamble to the Constitution means that the United States government should provide health care for its citizens is one of the most sadly misinformed comments I've ever seen on this forum. Let's parse it out: The preamble says only that the people are promoting their "general Welfare" by ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION. In other words, (1) a Constitution is needed, and (2) it's a good thing to ESTABLISH it in order to have one, because (3) if we DON'T have a Constitution, the "General Welfare," i.e. the then current state of our existential experience in America, will be HARMED - so that's WHY we need to HAVE one. That's what it means, no more, no less. I heard a few people saying what you did while Obamacare was being debated, and was shocked at their naivete. The language is in the Preamble only, has never been legally interpreted as you suggest, and is about as far away from justifying government-sponsored health insurance, or any other "welfare" spending, as Al Gore is from a happy marriage.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

"The preamble says only that the people are promoting their "general Welfare" by establishing a constitution."

Well, let's check: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Looks like you are wrong Cato, even though TomatoG provided the information for you. If they had wanted it to say that the "general welfare would be promoted by establishing a constitution," don't you think they would have worded it that way? Instead, what it does say is that in order to bring forth justice, tranquility, defense, and general welfare that the Consitition was created.

Healthcare is a matter of general welfare. I agree fully with TomatoGrower, and I agree fully with growing tomatoes.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

Your tax dollars at work: (HHS = Health and Human Services) "...The investigation found HHS paid thousands of dollars to people who were obviously ineligible for the program. _ HHS paid $3.9 million to 11,000 applicants who used the identities of dead people. _ HHS paid $370,000 to 725 applicants who were in prison. _ HHS paid $671,000 to about 1,100 people who made more than the maximum income to qualify for the program. Illinois paid $840 toward energy bills for a U.S. Postal Service employee who fraudulently reported zero income even though she earned about $80,000 per year. "Times are tough and I needed the money," she told investigators. New Jersey paid $3,200 to a nursing home on behalf of eight patients after the home's director applied for assistance. The patients' nursing home care was already paid by Medicaid. Virginia provided three payments totaling $2,400 to three separate applicants at the same address, according to the report...." Read about the whole sad mess at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gx5yIc9T4UTzCTmusin2EAy7RewwD9GMCFIO3

independant1 4 years, 12 months ago

1,300 Prison Inmates Get $9 Mil In Homebuyer Tax Credits Do the crime, get below prime. What's good enough for Chris Countrywide Dodd is good enough for America's convicts. One home was used by 67 different people to claim a tax credit. Someone call Stimulus cop, Sheriff Joe Biden, $26.7 miliion is a big effin' deal!

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

I think they would be dismayed by "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?"

Olympics 4 years, 12 months ago

The median household income in 1999, was $52,748 (inflation adjusted) and in 2008 $50,303. Thats right, the Republican controlled Senate, House, and the White House saw for the 1st time in modern history a loss in real wages. You vote for Republicans, you vote for failure.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

And housing costs, food costs, and utilities, basics went up. In 1990 when I lived in Ottawa you could rent a whole house for $300/month, in Lawrence, I think it was around $500. And these weren't dumps. You're lucky to find a 1 bedroom apartment for that much now, in Lawrence or Ottawa, yet people aren't making anymore money.

zzgoeb 4 years, 12 months ago

The issue with debt, wars and most problems stated by the writer were created by nearly 30 years of either conservative presidents, Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Dole and Gingrich's Republican majorities. The writer, a child of wealth, appears to suffer from the same symptoms as Bush II...too much money, too much partying, and too little real education and thinking...sad day for the press and our rights!

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, your comment is even more vapid than tomatogrower's. The Preamble has no force in law whatsoever. It has never been cited by any court as the basis for any specific constitutional holding, and courts have consistently held that it cannot be used to create rights that do not appear elsewhere in the Constitution. Look it up. That's probably the only way for you to appreciate the absurdity of the fifth-grade argument that you've fallen into because it fits your views of "social justice." If Obamacare is ultimately held to be constitutional, it won't be because of anything that appears in the Preamble.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

So some of the constitution fits your definition, and some parts don't?

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "Beatrice, your comment is even more vapid than tomatogrower's." That's probably the only way for you to appreciate the absurdity of the fifth-grade argument that you've fallen into (because it fits your views of "social justice.)"

gccs14r 4 years, 12 months ago

My guess is that this editorial was a drunk post by Dolph that saw the light of day by accident.

Amy Heeter 4 years, 12 months ago

To hell with all this constitution mumbo jumbo. If you want to understand what is happening here you need only return to your history lessons. Review 1929-1945 and pay specific attention to 1933 when FDR took office forward. Pay attention to FDR's shift of powers from states to the federal government. It is the same chess game with a change in players.

Amy Heeter 4 years, 12 months ago

A 401K and home equity is not a afforded right. Those investments are a personal choice. The pursuit of happiness is all that is guarnteed. If you or anyone invests and your investment doesn't pan out the way you would like the fault lies with you not the government. Without banks just who would finance your home or your car loan? Perhaps the real problem here is that some live beyond thier means and have the expectaion of personal bailout. Those are also the first people to shout from the roof tops when they might loose what they could not afford in the first place. They are also the same people who attack social programs because they believe others are getting something for free. The truth is nothing is without a price. Wether you toil your life away to obtain property or wether you scrape by with assistence from social programs. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter wether the leader is Democrate or Republican. Wether he gets a blow job or eats a peanut butter & jelly sandwich in the oval office. At the end of the day America is still more free than any other country in the world. Whatever you may personally think or believe that freedom is something you should be grateful for.

brujablanco 4 years, 12 months ago

Interesting you should mention FDR in an earlier post as if the social programs he instituted were something you don't agree with. Those same programs that, if you were to tell the truth. may just keep you living each day; subsidized housing, food stamps, AFDC, Social Security benefits, and free medical care. You can't really have it both ways.

Gratitude is a very useful emotion, unless, as I suspect in this case, it is overshadowed by anger, greed, apathy, hatred or envy.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Gratitude is certainly not useless.

You should try cultivating it a bit.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Except that banks, mortgage companies, etc. were allowed to make risky investments without correct regulation and oversight from the federal government, causing the financial mess.

And that credit rating agencies were paid by issuers of securities, a built-in conflict of interest.

So many risky securities were rated as safe, when they weren't.

So even if people/institutions bought only highly-rated securities, they were taking risks they were unaware of.

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

Right on I am thankful that every day I wake up and have clean drinking water that comes right in my house this is freedom I enjoy in America that others don't have, and it is thanks to my government's water wast management.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Overplayedhistory,

  1. I enjoy outstanding health and am not overweight.

  2. The Constitution was not designed to be, nor has it ever been, "a living document that was (sic) always negotiable." The only possibility of change recognized within the Constitution by its drafters was the possibility of amending it through strict procedures set forth within it. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, and one of the amendments (Prohibition) was thereafter repealed.

  3. The greatest mischief that has been practiced by liberal jurists is the effective amendment of the Constitution from the bench, by judicial fiat rather than through the amendment process.

  4. I have never received a "subsidy" from any govenmental entity, ever. When individual "stimulus" checks were sent out during the Bush administration, I didn't get one - but many people who hadn't paid a dime of income tax for years did. I have never personally benefited from "socialism" in any way, and your implication that I have, when you don't know a damn thing about me, is pure BS.

  5. I agree that it is the function of government to accomplish certain necessities that benefit ALL citizens. Your examples of "roads, teachers, firemen and cops" fall within this category.

  6. I agree that nationally our population is overweight, but the issue is what to do about it. When JFK became concerned about it in the early 1960's, junior high school gym teachers across America were encouraged to kick ass, they did, and it worked. Good luck getting that to fly today. Instead, as I earlier posited, we're going to see efforts from paternalistic liberals in DC to control what people eat. Given the fact that McDonald's got its start in Illinois and is still huge in that state means that the fight you would pay to see will occur when Obama decides to ban fast food. If people knew that government wouldn't pay for the medical costs of their obesity, many of them would eat more nutritionally.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Cato_the_elder, you benefit from "socialism" every time an educated person provides you with a service, in either private or the public sector. You benefit from the medical research funded by the government. You benefit from "socialism" every time you purchase a product from China, or Germany, or France, or Great Britain, or any of a number of countries that have implemented the policies you condemn for the United States.

fly_on_wall 4 years, 12 months ago

No sir you are just plane wrong on obesity. If government st oped subsidizing corn it would greatly help with the obesity problem because the empty calories of corn syrup are in everything. Why is it in everything people will eat more if its sweet and it is cheap to make it sweet.(because of the subsidy's) Then you add the electronic age with people getting less exercise but consuming more calories. Poverty has a huge influence on obesity because cheep foods are the worst foods. D.C. has been controlling what people eat just ask your farmers, or FDA (oh that is a socialist program that you benefit from as do I)The problem is they have controlled it to this end, now things are going diffrent direction because the people are demanding it.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

overplayedhistory, Don't you know that catotheelder has done everything in his life on his own. He even paves his own roads, he educated himself and would never lower himself to attend a public school. When he needs medical care he never goes to a doctor who takes welfare patients, and they better never take him to LMH or KUmed. Of course, he will never need health care, because he is skinny and we know skinny people never get sick. If he is ever in an accident and is disabled he has millions saved to pay for his care. Of course, he is so perfect, he will never be in an accident. He is an island amongst all of peons who care about community. Either that or he's in his mom's basement, and she buys his insurance. I find those who insist they are so independent, especially anonymously, are the ones most dependent.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 12 months ago

Mr. Simons,

Please stick to analyzing KU. You are so right on that, and so wrong here. We know you do not like Obama and democrats, but leveling accusations and platituds without the facts to back them up is just disappointing.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 12 months ago

I have no problem with Mr. Simons expressing his opinion, no matter how wrong he may be. However, to say that Obama's actions would "dismay America's founders" is simple a ridiculous, unproven, unprovable assertion.

If Obama's actions are viewed as unconstitutional, they interested bodies can file suit and the judicial branch of our government, charged with interpreting the Constitution, will decide.

Yes, interpreting the Constitution. If it were so clear and black and white, why do we need the judiciary? Like every large organization, business or government, our society does evolve and change, and our Constitution provides the framework.

America's founders would also be dismayed by the iPad and by the space shuttle too, I imagine.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Has he ever consumed a food item sweetened with high fructose corn syrup? That was almost certainly paid for through government payments to the corporate farmers.

The military is also paid for by the government. It is a socialist organization, and not a bunch of individual mercenaries. Why does cato hate our military?

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, your problem is that you always engage in knee-jerk reactions rather than actually read what you're purporting to whine about simply because of who wrote it. I stated in response to overplayedhistory's badly played comment that it is in fact the function of government to maintain certain necessities that benefit ALL citizens. Among these necessities is, of course, our armed forces, and that's not socialism. Sorry, Beatrice - you whiffed again.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

So, Cato_the_elder, you'd be in favor of health care that is provided to ALL citizens? Such as the single-payer plan that some people floated during the health care debate, but got shot down as "socialism"? Maybe you're really a socialist in disguise! Or maybe one doesn't need to be a "socialist" to think that it is a disgrace for people who are ill to have to pay to get well. Jesus didn't charge the people he healed.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "Beatrice, your problem is that you always engage in knee-jerk reactions rather than actually read what you're purporting to whine about simply because of who wrote it. " " in response to overplayedhistory's badly played comment"

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Tomatogrower, I actually did pave my own road (good call on that one), but never attended a private school. I've been a champion of public education, which is why I've been sorely dismayed at how badly it's been watered down over the last three decades.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

since a day has gone by now, and because i am aware you have time limits in your mind regarding responses to your own posts: did you really build a public road? all by yourself? all through your own efforts and costs? and no government involvement whatsoever? really? or are you remembering of a private drive of some kind?

oh, also. i was wondering how many battleships and aircraft carriers you personally have purchased in your own name.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Interesting.

Most who argue for strict interpretations of the constitution claim that the federal government has no legitimate role in education, and that public education itself is not constitutionally protected.

How is it that you disagree with that?

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Overplayedhistory, I'm beginning to think that you've overplayed your series of assumptions about what "socialism" actually is. There are degrees of same, and what many of us have previously chosen to tolerate in that regard is nothing compared to what Obama has already inflicted on us. For example, a sizable majority of Americans didn't want Obamacare at all, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted it on us anyway through one of the most reprehensible, dishonest vote-buying schemes in the history of this country. It must be defunded after the November elections, and thereafter must be allowed to die on the vine. Obamacare is socialism of a virulent kind, and far outstrips what you are labeling as "socialism."

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

All along, most Americans were in favor of what was inside the bill when looked at as individual issues, and recent polls show that Americans are actually in favor of the plan. Wrong again cato.

George Lippencott 4 years, 12 months ago

I have always been awed by the intelligence and forethought of our founders. They knew that the world would evolve and provided us a mechanism to update our constitution to meet the times. The notion that unaccountable individuals should be entrusted with making those changes frightens me. If the founders believed for a moment that the courts should just interpret the constitution differently over time why did they provide for amendments? They had a healthy fear of arbitrary power as could be exercised by the courts and provided many mechanisms to avoid it – including the amendment process.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

The problem is that many terms in the constitution are somewhat vague and open to differing interpretations.

For example, "unreasonable searches and seizures".

So, who decides what the meaning of the term "unreasonable" is, and how?

Also, if every time the meaning of a word changed, we had to amend the constitution, we'd be doing it a lot more than we seem to want to.

For example, "arms" clearly meant something different from modern day weapons, but you don't see conservatives railing against allowing them without a constitutional amendment.

And, since there were no automobiles, or planes, etc. in 1776, how do we apply the 4th amendment protections to them? For some reason, they are applied less stringently in automobiles. Should we amend the constitution to say "in automobiles, planes, etc." or apply the intent of the amendment to the new situations?

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, I haven't seen any "recent polls" showing that Americans are chafing at the bit for Obamacare to be implemented. Please direct me thereto, excluding if you don't mind any polls conducted by Obama's own henchmen.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

That's because they are still waiting for the "death panels", which never existed. I had a client who was complaining about the new laws, until she found out she could keep her grown son on her insurance for a longer time. Even then she didn't want to openly say she like it, because she has made some really out and out racist remarks about having a black president. Is she using the law to keep her son on her insurance? Yes. Would she say in a poll that she liked the law? No. I guess she would really have preferred her son was left uninsured. Especially since he has health problems, and would never have been able to get his own insurance. Of course, now he eventually will, unless the Republicans and tea party step in and bring back denials for preexisting conditions. They are chomping at the bit to gain power and take that away from people. Health care is only for the rich and healthy after all. If you weren't born with money and health, you should just go away and die like in the old days according to the tea party people.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

What I meant to say is that people are starting to realize the advantages that this health care bill has given them, but they still don't like it. This woman still rails against it, even though her son can still stay on her insurance, and that when he has to get his own insurance, he will be able to get it, despite his previous health problems. Yet, this woman, if asked if she supports the changes will say she doesn't. She hates anything Obama does, no matter what, and doesn't even hide the fact that it's because he is African American.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

The polls have shown that when asked questions about specific items in the legislation, people were generally in favor of it, but when asked in general they tended to oppose it.

It's an interesting fact.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Overplayed, you've finally said something that's accurate. The third sentence of your response is obviously correct.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I'm referring to the third sentence of your last response.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Voevoda, I said "certain" necessities, not all. Go back and read what I said. And, I might add, what is in fact a disgrace is your implication that no one should ever have to pay anything for any medical treatment that he or she perceives is necessary. Do you know how many people in Britain today visit physicians' offices for treatments they don't need and for perceived illnesses they don't have, and how often? Do you know how long it takes to get a knee replacement in Canada? Do you know why this is? By the way, are you gainfully employed? Just out of curiosity, did you pay any income taxes for calendar year 2009? Are you one of the ever-growing number of people in this country whom the rest of us are supporting?

As a postscript, attempting to equate the miracles performed by Jesus Christ with a carefully calculated political scheme designed to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible become even more dependent on government for their needs instead of themselves, so that the more dependent they become they will think that they have to vote for Democrats, is in my book a sacrilege.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

cato queries @ another poster: "By the way, are you gainfully employed?" "Just out of curiosity, did you pay any income taxes for calendar year 2009?" "Are you one of the ever-growing number of people in this country whom the rest of us are supporting?"

since we have seen these exact ad hominem attacks from you before on other posters on this forum with whom you did not personally agree (politically or culturally or othewise); have you considered that the most common answers to your queries are: yes yes and no?

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "By the way, are you gainfully employed?" "Just out of curiosity, did you pay any income taxes for calendar year 2009?" "Are you one of the ever-growing number of people in this country whom the rest of us are supporting?"

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Cato_the_elder, Your personal attacks are reprehensible. Yes, I pay taxes (a lot) and I have for my entire lengthy adult life.
Yes, I am familiar with the British and Canadian systems, and those in other places. They work better than ours in the US, and few people in those countries would trade their systems for our muddle.
Jesus himself healed people by the method available to him, and when others heal the sick, they are imitating Christ according to the talents God gave them. Many Christian theologians over the centuries have held that it is disgraceful, even sinful, to collect money from the sick as a condition of healing them. The most Christian plan, according to this view, would be health care to be provided free of charge to everyone, as a basic human right. The health care reform plan that was passed by Congress does not do this, but in that it extends health care to more people, it is a (small) step in the right direction.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

And, let me add, I have been employed for my entire adult life. Neither I nor any member of my family have received public assistance.
None of us have ever been arrested. All of us vote. We donate to charity. We have compassion for the less fortunate, and we do not begrudge the use of our tax money to help them. It is no disgrace to fall on hard times and to need public assistance. The poor do not relinquish their rights to speak on political issues just because they take it. On the contrary; they have a vital interest in the decisions that the government makes.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Weeslicket, just checking you know. After all, before the Bamster's Porkulus package was enacted he warned that his Porkulus spending spree was vitally necessary to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Well, it went to over 10% thereafter, it's currently still at 9 1/2%, and our deficit has shot through the ceiling with no lasting benefit from it in sight. There's still close to a one in ten chance that anyone posting on this site may be unemployed, so there's no harm in my asking after the welfare of one of my fellow citizens.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

snort. concern for the welfare of another citizen? hardly.

you behave like a bully.

tomatogrower 4 years, 12 months ago

You only want to know so that you can call them a moocher at the government's trough. We know how you feel about people who aren't as supposedly successful as you.

1983Hawk 4 years, 12 months ago

Dolph -

What exactly are you kvetching about, you tool? You concerned the feds are going to turn the dials on the estate tax back on and imperil the "rights" of all you trust fund babies to inherit obscene amounts of wealth without leading meritorious or industrious lives in any way, shape or form? Isn't it enough that the state of Kansas repealed ours at the behest of the Koch boys?

geekin_topekan 4 years, 12 months ago

I think the founders would be horrified that women are voting, blacks are free and Indians are citizens or are even still alive. "Ruthless savages" is what the Indians were called in the Declaration of Independents. This country's principles were designed by and for the white male with their best interests in mind.

The multiculturalism we see today is basically the founders 'whites only' ideas coming back to bite them in the posterior. Funny really.

Fortunately we had Lincoln who didn't believe that blacks had a place in this country yet believed in freedom even more. Many generals realized that the Indians couldn't be beat militarily so treaties were made to curb loss of life and equipment. It didn't take long to realize that they were peaceful so other tactics were necessary to access the tremendous resources of the land.

The founders were very much pro-corporation. They would be thrilled to see people of color basically enslaved for profit and women's right to various choices curbed.

George Lippencott 4 years, 12 months ago

jafs (anonymous) replies… "The problem is that many terms in the constitution are somewhat vague and open to differing interpretations.

Absolutely right. There has to be flexibility and I suspect we will always disagree on where the line might be.

Think about the taking clause. When formulated the government took property rarely and the founders were still very concerned at the crown taking homes to billet troops. Now we have the government limiting the use of property (at cost to the owner) under the taking clause and taking property for economic reasons. Perhaps that wandering is enough to suggest that an amendment is needed to clarify the intent of the people. Remember a basic purpose of the document was to delineate the sharing of power with the people holding all power not delegated to the state. Perhaps we have wandered far enough in this area that the people should again be consulted on that sharing.

We could also explore the limits of the commerce clause. When formulated the governments role in commerce was very limited. Now we have found health care as an element of commerce. To some that is a stretch. Does the government have powers to determine just what care you get? I understand that the issue is framed in the notion of government-financed care but when did the government get into the business of financing health care at all? It is one thing to enable and another to control. Sounds like it might be important enough to ask the people if they intended for the government to have those powers?

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Badlyplayedhistory, I never back down. You simply don't understand how the Constitution was drafted, and you also don't understand the meaning of the words you use. The "negotiation" stopped when the language of the Constitution was agreed upon by its drafters and sent to the States for ratification. If you're attempting to state a position, try to be more precise.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "I never back down."

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Weeslicket, "bullying?" Like when Obama took office, announced that a giant "stimulus" package was in the offing, and then excluded Republicans from all meetings on it? Is your hero a "bully" too?

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

yes, cato. you bully anyone who does not completely agree with you. i am calling you out as a bully. you are the one posting here as cato_the_elder. no one else.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Tomatogrower, your tomatoes are getting more rotten every time you post. "Health care is for the rich and healthy after all" - that's complete, total, smug BS, and angers many of those who as responsible citizens have suitably provided for their health care. The vast number of responsible Americans who have health insurance now include all races, colors, creeds and economic backgrounds - rich or poor, the key is individual responsibility. If someone is truly needy and needs government assistance for objectively required health care, that's fine - but to force all citizens to run through the federal government gauntlet for all of their individual health care needs, which is clearly Obama's goal (review what he said before he ran for president) is not only wrong, but is patently unconstitutional.

fancy80 4 years, 12 months ago

"Health care is for the rich and healthy after all" No, health care is for everyone. That's why illegal immigrants go to the emergency room when they have the flu. It's free. Hospitals aren't allowed to turn them away. I think you mean Health Insurance is for the wealthy, but even that is incorrect. As a single mother making not very much money, I was always able to provide insurance for myself and my child. Of course, to do so, it was necessary that I work. I didn't drive a fancy car or live in a great neighborhood, but I understood what my priorites were. It never dawned on me that the government or the "rich people" were responsible to pay it.

I did not agree with the Obamacare bill, but did see the need for some reform. Unfortunately, Obamacare only dealt with health insurance reform and therefore missed the boat. If they had tried to truly reform health CARE, and included tort reform, competive pharmaceutical prices, tax credits for doctors that provided free services for the needy, etc. then I would have been for it.

Quite simply, it is un-American to force the citizens to buy something or pay a penatly. That was a deal the Obama administration made with the Insurance Companies and their lobbyists. It was the only way they could "sell" it as being affordable. Make everyone do it and the cost is spread out over more people.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

To be fair, it is the states that regulate auto insurance.

And, there is a difference between being required to have coverage in an automobile that protects those whom you may injure in an accident and requiring everyone to have health insurance to protect themselves.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "Tomatogrower, your tomatoes are getting more rotten every time you post." that's complete, total, smug BS,"... ((...and angers many of those who as responsible citizens have suitably provided for their health care. (i.e; i am angry))

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Beatrice, I'm still waiting. The latest Real Clear Politics average of polls shows that 49.8% of Americans still oppose Obamacare while only 43% favor it, with some of the polls indicating a negative v. positive disparity of as much as 11, 13, and 15 points.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

"A survey designed and analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation and conducted June 17 though June 22 of 1,207 adults reported that 48% of those surveyed had a favorable view of health reform and 41% an unfavorable view. That’s a seven percentage point bump up in support from the May survey." http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/06/30/poll-shows-health-care-reform-may-be-catching-on/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/30/poll-suggests-health-care-reform-becoming-more-popular/?fbid=C8a8o2oW0AB

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/more_polls_show_health-care_re.html

pace 4 years, 12 months ago

God, Jesus, George Washington, Dear Abby and Dr. Schweitzer would be dismayed to read Dolph's interpretation of the constitution, history and current events.

verity 4 years, 12 months ago

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I do believe you're right. And even if you aren't, you've given me a chuckle.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Gee, Beatrice, is the left-wing Kaiser Family Foundation (not to be confused with Kaiser Permanente, with which it has no connection whatsoever), which has for years advocated a single-payer system, the best biased poll you can rustle up? Is ultra-liberal former blogger Ezra Klein's cherry-picked BS the best you've got? Really, Beatrice, I never cite information put out by Michael Savage for anything, but apparently your standards aren't the same as mine. Hey, I'll tell you what: Keep citing the Kaiser Family Foundation and Ezra Klein all you want. Real Clear Politics' poll averages are not edited by Ezra Klein. As soon as the RCP average shows a majority of people favoring Obamacare, let me know. I'm not holding my breath.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Do.

Do hold your breath. I'll be back in an hour.

staff04 4 years, 12 months ago

"paid no attention to the wishes of the majority of Americans"

You don't hear a lot of things from the right more arrogant than this. They simply do not understand that polls are not the same as Polls. I don't suppose they ever will.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

staff04 4 years, 12 months ago

Well, I guess that settles it. And proves my thesis.

staff04 4 years, 12 months ago

And the theses of countless sociologists and psychologists...

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

No, staph04, Obamacare was clearly opposed by the majority of Americans when it was inflicted on us against our will by one of the most corrupt vote-buying schemes in our history, engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their various henchmen. It's still opposed by a majority of us, and will, hopefully, be defunded after the November elections give us a new Congress and the Beltway's flirtation with European Socialism is over once and for all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 12 months ago

"by one of the most corrupt vote-buying schemes in our history, engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their various henchmen."

I won't disagree about the vote-buying, but I think you're 100% off on which are the engineers and which are the henchpeople.

staff04 4 years, 12 months ago

I believe the experts refer to it as "confirmation bias."

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

No one, Agnostink, and certainly not you.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

examples of bullying behavior: "No one, Agnostink, and certainly not you."

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

if anyone is interested, i flagged a number of cato's comments.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

Actually, the ljw editors encourage flagging of comments that may violate the terms of service, since they can't read everything.

weeslicket 4 years, 12 months ago

stop calling me names, pilgrim2. remember, this is a side thread regarding bullying behaviors.

weeslicket 4 years, 11 months ago

something is certainly sad. wonder what it might be?

getalifestalker 4 years, 12 months ago

Hmm after this

weeslicket (anonymous) says… if anyone is interested, i flagged a number of cato's comments. July 5, 2010 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | reply | suggest removal | )

One post was removed. The powers have spoken.

brujablanco 4 years, 12 months ago

Your psychological projection is showing again, toots.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

11 million were able to watch the World Cup because Bush/Cheney put them out of work. Probably not exactly what they would have chosen.

What the Reaganomics nuts were expecting is for americans to become "shop till you drop robots" to keep the economy going as they were scheduling the mass exodus of USA jobs to support the Chinese government.

But "shop till you drop" is wasteful and cannot be sustained. 16 million need jobs so how in the world can anyone say "go shop" . Remember that was one of first thoughts out of the mouth of GW during his 9/11/01 screw up. Forget 9/11/01 ever happened and go shop. Ohhhhh so shallow.

Then the Reaganomics nuts got relaxed with credit card debt to promote the "shop till you drop robots". That high interest rate rip off scheme. What the poor manipulated robots never realized was the greater portion of their payments WERE NOT being applied to the principle.... yep they were being financially raped.

Shopping for the most part is a waste of money. Most of us have more than we need including me.

I conclude:

  1. Tobacco taxes are good. Smoking has many adverse impacts on the human body thus increases the cost of medical insurance which provides the medical insurance industry one great big opportunity to increase YOUR insurance premiums = lose lose lose

  2. Bringing new cleaner energy sources online in communities throughout the USA is creating jobs and putting tax dollars back into USA communities.

  3. Borrowing money to create jobs and new economic growth will create jobs in other sectors = keeping dollars in the USA = win win win = good use of tax dollars.

  4. Since the previous government destroyed the economy and jobs it must the responsibility of the new government to restore the economy and jobs.

  5. Therefore MY government must somehow directly fund new opportunities.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

That's not strictly true.

The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

The current regime continues their war on American citizens. "PHOENIX—The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants..." http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15447868

gatekeeper 4 years, 12 months ago

This is just cr*p. I wouldn't expect anything less from a teabagger.

It's just like a sign friends of mine saw in MO this weekend. The sign claimed that Obama was changing the lyrics to the Natl Athem and that we need to impeach him. Teabaggers will believe anything thrown at them. They're just filled with hatred and want to do anything possible to take this country back to the 1950's.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

Yes, they want their country back, while rational people want it forward.

MyName 4 years, 12 months ago

Here you go Dolph. Let's just set these strawmen back up so you can take another swing at them...

"What, debate? About facts and ideals?? No, no time for a real debate, I'm too busy knocking down these strawmen..."

gatekeeper 4 years, 12 months ago

I am stating facts. Most of the cr*p tea baggers speak of are untruths. Most in the tea bag movement are upset and afraid because a black man is in office. When they say they want their country back, they are saying they want their way of life before the 60's back. Notice most at these rallies are old? The younger people are usually there holding signs showing their stupidity. Stick a bunch of morons and old people together and you get the tea baggers.

The movement was founded by a racist. An outspoken racist!!! Look it up.

Watch the campaign ads of those who say they're part of the tea party movement. Clearly racist a holes. Why have there been many signs and slogans at their rallies saying "save white America"?

You call it profiling - I'm calling them how I see them. They put themselves out on public display. Don't believe they're a bunch of racist idiots, just check out these.

verity 4 years, 12 months ago

Where's Puddleglum? I won't know what to think until the pretty one has spoken.

jayhawklawrence 4 years, 12 months ago

Here is an issue that Dolph and I would probably agree on; immigration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews

Seems strange to me that in a state that is overrun with illegals, most of which you can recognize on the street, you are not allowed to verify their citizenship unless you have the guts to do what AZ did. It takes a lot of arrogance and ignorance to want to sue the state of AZ when the federal government did nothing to solve the problem. I might be one of the few people on this blog who actually lived in AZ and owned a business there. I have traveled extensively in the Southwestern US and I have nothing against legal immigration. Too bad these law abiding AZ citizens are being treated like criminals for just trying to defend their state from lawless immigration.

beatrice 4 years, 12 months ago

"which you can recognize on the street"

Wow! You have some mad skills of observation, with being able to tell if a person is a citizen or not just by seeing him/her on the street!

Actually, thanks for pointing out what I have said all along, which is that the new law will lead to profiling. If you really think that you can look at people and tell if they are legal or not -- that is profiling, pure and simple.

Aiko 4 years, 12 months ago

Its been over an hour so lets hope she is still holding her breath.

IndusRiver 4 years, 12 months ago

During the New Deal, Congress created a host of administrative agencies, usually as part of the executive branch, to implement a wide array of new laws. These agencies began making their own rules and regulations, known as administrative law. If such agencies go too far in their rule making, they can violate the Constitution's delegation of legislative power to Congress.

In short, folks, if we don't vote Republican, the Democrats are going to continue to defraud and destroy this country.

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

Most of the Federal agencies serve very necessary purposes in keeping with the executive branch of government. We can all point to an agency here or there that is superfluous, or examples of policies that are stupid or badly implemented. However, they don't negate the good work done by all the rest. That's why both Republican and Democratic administrations have created agencies. We would be less free, less prosperous, and less safe without them.

IndusRiver 4 years, 12 months ago

I don't believe the Republicans have done anything but steal their money back.

gatekeeper 4 years, 12 months ago

So you are saying that republicans are the head honchos at all the financial institutions that Bush bailed out with the TARP act? And republicans are the heads of the oil companies? Those are who have been stealing the tax payers money. Oh, and don't forget the lobbyists. That's the real republican party, huh?

My parents are republicans. They haven't gotten any money back you claim was stolen. Where's this money? Lot's of broke republicans that keep voting that way out of ignorance and religious issues would love to know how they steal money back. Please explain.

IndusRiver 4 years, 12 months ago

I believe Obama's 2011 budget for HUD alone is $48B. B for billions. We have two America's in this country. We really do. As I recall from reading history, Communists seize power by promising food and shelter to everybody.

gatekeeper 4 years, 12 months ago

You are just ignorant. Yes, we have two America's. There are the uber rich and the rest of us. Have you not noticed that the middle class is a thing of the past? The rich control this nation, whether republican or democrat. Increaseing the HUD budget means that more people will have homes. Oh, what a terrible thing.

And if you really think Obama is a commie, then get your stupid signs out and go protest with the rest of the racists. And you should do a little reading on the spread of communism. One of the best classes I took at KU. Force was usually the main factor behind the spread of communism.

Liberty275 4 years, 12 months ago

Yes, we have two America's.

One where we cheat on our cancer-ridden wife and one where we don't.

Sorry. If you are going to borrow the cliche, I can't help but expose the sleaze behind it.

And if you really think Obama is a commie, then get your stupid signs out and go protest with the rest of the racists

You do realize there is a massive hole in your logic grouping people that believe a person is a commie with people that think other races are superior or inferior, right?

Force was usually the main factor behind the spread of communism.

Socialism/Marxism/Communism does tend to force it's will on unwilling people at the point of a bayonet. Did you really need a college professor to tell you that?

voevoda 4 years, 12 months ago

IndusRiver, You need to read history again. The Communists in Russia in 1917 may have promised food, but they didn't promise shelter. In some places Communists seized power and in others they were elected. I like the idea that everybody should have food and shelter. I like the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people making the people's most basic needs a priority.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Aiko, if by chance you're referring to me, I said yesterday that I wasn't holding my breath, and no smarmy suggestion by Beatrice made 17 hours later would have changed that. Nor is there anything androgynous or feminine about my character, so each of you can put a sock in it on that front.

RogueThrill 4 years, 12 months ago

I am pretty sure people like Nathaniel Paine would probably object to your newspaper, but here we are.

cato_the_elder 4 years, 12 months ago

Rogue, to whom do you mean to refer? Thomas Paine? Nathaniel Hawthorne? Nathan Hale? Natty Bumppo? Someone else? Just curious.

Jaylee 4 years, 11 months ago

Only thing for which writer should blame Obama is not taken more action on cleaning up Bush's mess.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, namely, so the general population doesn't get dumber with each passing year. GWB = Elitist prick

Commenting has been disabled for this item.