Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-22/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Sparring over spending and taxes intensifies one week before sequestration. Details of immigration proposals emerge. And Florida’s governor reverses course on Medicaid. Guest host Steve Roberts and a panel of journalists discuss the week’s top national stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Shawna Thomas
White House producer for NBC News.
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Friday News Roundup Video
Panelist Chris Cillizza, author of The Fix politics blog, discussed Vice President Joe Biden's remark that if Americans want to protect themselves against home intruders, they should "get a double-barrel shotgun." Biden spoke as part of a Facebook town hall Tuesday saying that Americans don't need semi-automatic weapons because shotguns have the same impact. Cillizza said Biden supporters and detractors responded to the remark differently. "Like almost everything in politics these days, it's dependent on the partisan lens through which you see these things," Cillizza said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
citizencontact wrote:
"I suggested that the wage should first pay enough to avoid the rest of us from subsidizing low wages through charity or govt aid (or avoiding deprivation of workers)."
Well, cc, what about the posts with the short sighted thinking, like the quote above? Which is better for the economy? Which requires more "subsidy" or aid? Two guys making 7.50 an hour or one guy making 9 bucks and one guy without a job? Because that's what you're looking at if the minimum wage is raised.
Think about it.
ecgberht2 wrote:
"Which is better for the economy? ... Two guys making 7.50 an hour or one guy making 9 bucks and one guy without a job? Because that's what you're looking at if the minimum wage is raised."
Whoa! Watch what you're saying, there. You're saying that fifty percent of minimum wage earners will be laid off if the wage is raised. That, friend, is ridiculous. You're one of the smarter commenters on this site; I'd think you'd be more careful.
TLM wrote:
"You're saying that fifty percent of minimum wage earners will be laid off if the wage is raised."
Not saying that at all and didn't mean to imply it if that's what you took away. It was a simple example to say, that if the minimum wage goes up, in this economy, UE will follow - particularly UE6 which includes under-employment. In terms of labor, it is a buyers market. That's just a fact. Does that sound like a good time to raise the minimum wage a labor buyer (employer) has to pay?!
Not to put too fine a political point on this, but it is the President recommending this. That says to me that he either doesn't understand the economic principles at work or he just doesn't care.
Actually, only half of the points were similar to Democratic Party positions. The other half were novel. And I wanted to help others to learn how to not just counter your numerous points, but how to evaluate them.
Perhaps, you could evaluate your own posts prior to posting. Here are some pointers:
cc wrote:
"Can you reconcile your definitions with common usage? "
"What is government? ...Government is a construct that allows for a legal system and an orderly society and common benefits."
Good question. Which government? Federal Government, State Government, County Government, Local Government, or PTA? They are all governments, but they have very different purposes and therefore, powers and authorities.
This goes to the Democratic talking point that "Republicans/Conservatives hate government" or "want to do away with government" which is absurd on its face.
Actually, we live in a federal system where although there are divisions, all of the above parts of our government are together. States must adopt the US Constitution and local governments are chartered by the states. They operate together with some jurisdictional separations, although often overlapping.
Although I have no reason believe that all Republicans hate government, I do understand why many come to that conclusion. Cui bono? Republicans in government often support more laws and regulations that benefit the wealthy and powerful, like patent, trademark, property rights, more spending on armaments, liability protection for corporations, etc, etc, etc. And so do most Democrats, just not at the expense of using the government to protect the life and liberty of the rest of society. Republicans of yesteryear overlapped much more on the last point than currently in my estimation.
And now the rhetoric of limited government has been adopted by followers of the Republican propaganda even when it is absent a protection of property by the "federal level" and filled with inchoate and incoherent arguments. The misrepresentation of the federal-state-local interplay has been mostly a way to bring a certain fight to a venue which advantages one party. Republicans and Democrats at all levels and for various issues do this and the push/pull is a normal part of a multi-level representative democratic republic.
citizencontact wrote: "Here are some pointers"
You can take those pointers and....
Pretty much these comment boards are little more than one upmanship political competitions. I always find it odd that when someone puts something out there and it's clearly partisan, clearly lacking in content, that they act surprised when it's responded to and easily refuted.
What I do when I see talking point dumps is to simply use them to my advantage, to give quick superior and contrary information in a concise response. Use the situation to make links to interesting articles that I have read, voice my own opinion without having the requirement to put much work into it, but always put something out there more thoughtful than the initial comment.
Of course you disagree with that, so we will just take our chances on what others think and leave it at that. What difference does it make anyway, this is a partisan comment board and no one has jumped ship as far as I know.
Repeating straw man arguments and flooding the zone with misinformation and a link or two to /opinion/ page articles, does not make a reasoned argument.
None of my assertions were copied, most were novel, and none were talking points. (again with the misuse of words and phrases)
I am not being a partisan, nor are partisan arguments very interesting to me. Feel free to espouse them, but I think it makes the conversation less interesting. Just curious from time to time to enter the fray and be afraid of the discourse.
No hard feelings. Nothing ventured, nothing gained (my only cliche of the day).
Daniel
citizencontact wrote: "most were novel"
?
sorry I missed that.
These were novel and/or very rare. Re-read them. The last is a definition based on the common misunderstanding of calling the federal budget unbalanced as a term of art as opposed to the states wherein both create debt each year despite the use of the term of a balanced budget.
I used to post links to sources here, but since many discount or do not use them, I have stopped doing it except for novel ones like linking to your past posts NTGA. But I always check the validity of what I post as they are permanent and I want to be accurate. I will correct anything I can confirm to be wrong.
OK, enlighten me?
citizencontact wrote: "Tax cuts for the wealthy are paid for by the government borrowing mainly from US investors. So instead of the investors borrowing themselves on the open market, they are getting tax breaks and lending a large portion of it back to the government."
What does that even mean? "Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes." Are you saying the government allowing high earners to keep any of their income either through write offs (incentives for investment) or limits on rates, is a tax cut?
"Wall Street investors were worried that the government would stop borrowing money and kill the market for treasuries/bonds and got their wish for deficits from the Bush administration after years of surplus."
Are you saying the Bush administration deliberately went into deficit spending to increase the value of treasuries/bonds?
The Bush administration came into office with a $5+ trillion debt and a recession, in 2001 the 9/11 attack. I don't get the connection?
"If the interest rates do go up on government debt, it will be wealthy US investors that directly profit. Scaring the world that the US might default could finally drive those rates up."
What??? If the risk goes up, and it is going up, because of the obvious unsustainability of the governments ever increasing spending, investors quite realistically want a better return on the risk, why would they invest otherwise. There is a point when massive spending cuts and massive increases in taxes has to follow decades of over indulgence, an economy flat on its back because of an out of control federal government that prints money wildly, devaluing it's currency to a point where investors will have much reduced buying power with it, will naturally insist on high interest rates to keep the money spigot flowing. It's our federal government that will scare the world.
"It is inaccurate to say that state budgets are balanced compared to the federal government. States regularly issue debt, that is borrow, but just call it a capital budget. The federal government balances its budget each year, it just does it from a general budget. The main difference is that the federal government can create money, although that is generally done through the Federal Reserve."
I don't know anyone saying that that knows what they are talking about without qualifications. "balanced compared to" yes some if not most states are in much better shape than the federal government, some states are at the brink like California, others need very doable spending reforms, pension obligations restructured and changed to resemble personal retirement accounts like 401k's. Others are so completely dominated by liberal politicians in the pocket of public sector unions who are incapable of taking on public sector benefits. Their finances are at a point where their high tax rates are driving businesses away, their debts are so high that tax reductions are all the more difficult to enact without major spending cuts. Like the federal government, they are increasingly viewed as high risk borrowers and will reap the benefits of being irresponsible, higher interest rates on bonds.
"The federal government balances its budget each year, it just does it from a general budget. The main difference is that the federal government can create money, although that is generally done through the Federal Reserve."
AND!!! This is basic information, I would hope anyone reading this on this comment board knows that states don't print money and the federal government does..
Responses
But it saddens me that we are conflicted over whether to work on increasing efficiency, productivity, safety, etc.
The government has been crucial to our economy, by regulating the markets, enforcing property and intellectual property rights within reason (common law, etc.), producing fantastic and universal weather data, the GPS system, the funding of the creation of the Internet and Web browser, vaccination regimes saving millions from early death and deformity, homestead acts, public school system, higher education promotion, standards and measures, funding and directing research that has saved millions of lives, the courts that provide contract dispute resolution and bankruptcy systems, by ... and contrary to your view, necessary for a robust "private sector."
Instead, of promoting higher wages and generally valuing work, you claim that paying good wages is wrong, but taxing those with vast riches may somehow disrupt the economy. The opposite is true. We are on the cusp of even greater energy and computing efficiency, enormous productivity gains, safer living, and avoiding massive ecological failure that threatens all life on earth. I still work and hope that there is enough momentum to get past the self-destructive policies I hear echoed in your writings.
cc, I have never read such a pile of gibberish in my life. No offense intended.
Let's start here:
"Actually, we live in a federal system where although there are divisions, all of the above parts of our government are together."
What does that even mean?! Do you know? I think you have some notion of what you think our government is supposed to look like, but it's perverted.
You don't even bother to mention the Constitution. An inconvenient detail when you think "all the above parts of our government are together".
I recommend reading the Constitution for a start. Focus specifically on Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights if you want a true picture of the relationship of the FG to the State governments. They are not "all together". In fact, under the Constitution the powers of the FG are specifically LIMITED. Those powers vested in it are spelled out in Article 1, Section 8. And Amendment 10 makes very clear that the FG should be LIMITED to those powers.
Each state has its own Constitution. Within the limits of the rights granted the citizens under the Constitution of the United States and to the exclusion of powers granted to the FG specifically in it, the States can do what they want. They are not "all together" in some kind of government mish-mash.
The FG has one and only one purpose; to protect its citizens. Its job is to protect its citizens both from outside forces and from each other, whether as individuals or among the several states - which is why the provisions exist that force the states to play well together. That's what A1S8 is all about. It is not the job of the government to PROVIDE for its citizens. That's the job of the citizens. If today's FG were limited to its Constitutional duties and powers, it would be a fraction of its current size, there would be few if any lobbyists, and we would STILL be thriving as a nation instead of being in the death spiral that we currently enjoy.
Wow, dude, very selective reading, dude. Like the Articles of Confederation never existed and dumped.
Reread the portions and boy are you a poor reader. It seems your agenda is allowing you to misread or just plain misunderstand our constitution and government.
First of all, one document stitches together the role of the different levels of government, federal and state. Its called the U.S. Constitution, which I did mention when I mentioned it (second sentence). That would be a big hint that the federal and state govs are closely related. Two, even in your imagined Article One, Section Eight, it clearly designates the Congress as superior in terms of power to the States in many regards. Even more so in Section Ten. Perhaps you should read the Senate's annotated version for some pointers. And even when states get sole jurisdiction of an issue (such as most parts of contract law), it as part of a whole/integrated system.
And there is now a movie out, Lincoln, to reflect the need to pound this into the US Constitution explicitly starting within the XIIIth Amendment: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
And as your simply wrong reading of the purpose of the U.S. Constitution which has a very clear statement of purpose in its preamble, I suspect you will never get that the laws passed in the last two centuries have been found constitutional. The Supreme Court (even Supreme over the state courts, see: Bush v. Gore) is the only true test of constitutionality. You may not like it when you are upset with its rulings, but that's our constitution. You can try to deny it, but it's, as they say, the law.
After writing my last response and I rereading your "gibberish" post. I noticed your emphatic use of the word limit. Using all caps is not just considered emphasis, but shouting. Use of the term "death spiral" and your assertions that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers, also seem like anger or shouting.
Are you angry with our form of government? The various parts of govt have roles and limitations of power, but are intended to work together. I have worked in the govt in the past working on these issues including the interplay of federal and state jurisdiction. This is our reality.
Our constitution has had faults and lacked certain provisions, which is why it includes an amendment process to allow society to perfect it over time. The federal portion of the govt certainly does a lot and exercises great powers. But that has always been the case, including in the original articles like the provision for establishing a post office which could have been a private enterprise.
I can see you do not appreciate how our constitution has been duly interpreted by the Supreme Court and allowed for a larger role of the federal level of govt in our lives. I would argue that this has in many cases, but not all, been advantageous. And it has enhanced the private sector's role, and allowed it to also play a much larger role in our society than the first chartered corporations could even imagine. And each individual and group of people have also been empowered by the federal govt's work--like the Internet, which allows all of us to be our own publishers and speak with greater voices than possible at the dawn of our country.
You see, govt and society and individuals are not in a zero sum game of power as I think you believe. Limits, like meter in poetry, only restrict the form, but not the power of verse. Likewise do the limits enshrined in the US Constitution work to empower all of us.
citizencontact wrote: "Responses"
OK, then I was right the first time, liberal democrat party talking points. You say the same things as the left says but in a different way, in a incoherent way.
How about a pointer for you. If it's so difficult to understand, maybe your writing skills need some work!
Definition of NOVEL: new and not resembling something formerly known or used.
I still see nothing "novel" in your assertions
#1 Tax the rich
#2 and #3 The tax cuts caused the Bush deficits
#4 Bush squandered Clinton's surpluses, , ignoring the 90's peace dividend, dot com boom, republican congress and the driver of the entire fiscal responsibility debate, Ross Perot.
#5 You support The feds role in increasing money supplies at historic levels, this is a liberal position.
#6 You believe Social Security and Medicare are not in serious long term trouble, also liberal and frequently mentioned.
Same old, same old...
"Bloody pulpit" is more apt than "Bully pulpit," when you recall Lyndon Johnson and G.W. Bush getting the US into useless wars.
"Using all caps is not just considered emphasis, but shouting. Use of the term "death spiral" and your assertions that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers, also seem like anger or shouting. "
Seems like? "Emphasis seems like shouting?" "Your posts seems angry?" Gee, you talk about the government exercising great powers ... it seems like you favor a Communist form of government. Now, don't you hear how silly that sounds. Here's a clue, cc. I don't care what anything "seems like" to you. That is the beginning of the straw man argument. Which throws out most of your posts.
As for the "stitched together government", I agree. Only problem for you is Amendment 10, which vests unenumerated power with the states and with the people. Do you think the Medicaid program reflects that? Do you think the myriad of Federal Programs that hold the states hostage reflect that?
As for the preamble and the purpose of the FG, you've got to be kidding me. You simply cannot use it to argue against my position of the purpose of the FG. You are, of course, referring to the "general welfare" clause, which has been used as justification for many things. But please tell me how giving money to a welfare mother benefits the general welfare. Please tell me how subsidizing farmers or oil companies benefits the general welfare. In fact, please tell me how making payments to ANY individual (and that's EMPHASIS, not ANGER) benefits the general welfare without a severe perversion of that clause. Building roads and bridges, benefits the general welfare. Providing currency benefits the general welfare. Tell me how the Multifamily Housing Office benefits the general welfare. Or how scores of the following 450+ agencies which actually exist benefit the general welfare.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
As for the judicial process, it is what it is. The process is far from perfect, but it is what we've got, yes. Your unfettered endorsement of it, of course, must include Korematsu v United States, Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, or Buck v Bell in which Justice Holmes upheld forced sterilization of the mentally ill, saying “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” SCOTUS gets it wrong. As for Bush v Gore, it was a Presidential election. SCOTUS of course had to have ultimate say. They don't always and refuse to hear MANY (emphasis, not anger) cases in which they defer to lower courts. I'm sure you were not happy with Bush v Gore, but I would maintain that SCOTUS decisions expanding the power of the FG with respect to the Commerce Clause have been far more damaging. Read Wickard v Filburn. Ridiculous stretching of FG power. As was Gonzales v. Raich which was supported by Scalia and Kennedy. Congress has power to regulate commerce under the commerce clause even when the commerce does not cross state lines? Are you kidding me? The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to allow Congress to regulate in order to prevent/obviate disputes amongst the states with respect to commerce, not direct it. In other words, it was a way to make the states play nice together - which view is supported by other portions of the document. In the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause, there is no need for enumeration of the powers under A1S8. This view simply says, "everything is commerce", therefore, Congress can do anything it wants.
Want a DOE and No Child Left Behind? We're regulating pencils and desks. It's laughable. By the way, I'm not saying there is no place for NCLB ... but not at the FEDERAL LEVEL (emphasis, not anger). The States can do what they want, but the enumerated powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (emphasis, not anger) are enumerated for a reason, and Article 1, Section 8 exists for a reason, and that makes those powers, yes, LIMITED (emphasis, not anger).
"I can see you do not appreciate how our constitution has been duly interpreted by the Supreme Court and allowed for a larger role of the federal level of govt in our lives."
Still think so? Trust me, I "appreciate" it a lot!
"I would argue that this has in many cases, but not all, been advantageous".
And I would argue, and I have facts on my side, not rhetoric, that it has put us 16T+ in debt; 50K for every man, woman, and child in this country.
"And it has enhanced the private sector's role, and allowed it to also play a much larger role in our society than the first chartered corporations could even imagine. And each individual and group of people have also been empowered by the federal govt's work--like the Internet, which allows all of us to be our own publishers and speak with greater voices than possible at the dawn of our country".
Pure rhetoric. Want a history lesson on the internet? Came out of the head of Paul Baran, an employee of Rand Corporation, a private company, in contract with the DOD, part of that Constitutional role of Government, unlike Solyndra, A123 Systems, and other FG failures with our hard-earned money.
"You see, govt and society and individuals are not in a zero sum game of power as I think you believe".
The Founders thought so. That's why Amendment 10 exists.
"Limits, like meter in poetry, only restrict the form, but not the power of verse. Likewise do the limits enshrined in the US Constitution work to empower all of us."
Pure rhetoric, utter nonsese ... one might say, gibberish.
#1 Tax the rich- Not true. I said do not borrow from them especially to just give it back as a tax cut.
#2 and #3 The tax cuts caused the Bush deficits - I said the tax cuts were to avoid paying off the debt too quickly which is what the Secy. of Treas is quoted as having said. The rest of the debt increase you can continue to argue who deserves the blame.
#4 Bush squandered Clinton's surpluses, , ignoring the 90's peace dividend, dot com boom, republican congress and the driver of the entire fiscal responsibility debate, Ross Perot.- Yes, true. Forget the blame. It happened. Surpluses to deficits. Now the deficits are decreasing again year over year. You can claim it was the Repubs that caused it. I dont care.
#5 You support The feds role in increasing money supplies at historic levels, this is a liberal position. - I did not say I favored increasing the money supply. I just pointed out it did not create inflation or cause a collapse in the bond market. May be it will some time, may be. Or not. I remember the silver market boom that was engineered and I smell the same here.
#6 You believe Social Security and Medicare are not in serious long term trouble, also liberal and frequently mentioned. Not true, I believe that they may be in serious long term trouble. Emphasis on long term. I just do not trust those that have advocated killing or drastically changing them being in charge of them. Give me the Gipper and Tip over them.
Same old, same old... Not true, not true. New wine here, so stop whining.
ecgberht2,
Really, really. Yes, I remember your Baran, creator of the Internet, argument. I know people from Darpa who were there working on it and have been a member of the W3C for a decade, written legislation, articles about the Internet, etc. Really, really. I remember all the GE and BBSs, AOL that came over to the publicly funded NSFNET. People created the Internet, government funded much of that. People fought for grants from the government to do it. The NCSA Mosaic was created at the ... NCSA. I could go on. I am very aware of the interplay of individuals, publicly chartered corporations, NGOs and the role of the gov.
Again, I looked at all of your arguments. My point on constitutionality was that the fed role has been found to be constitutional. You do not appear to like it. Too bad. I like some of it and don't like some of it. But it is.
And I have been embroiled in jurisdictional issues and I think that the pro-state attitude is more of tactical issue than a substantive one. I believe in results and good processes. Some states do really well, some lousy, but we are one country and a loose confederation did not work for the founders and is likely to be even worse now with many times the population.
And the approx 4T of state debt. Or are all governments bad. What level do you want taxes? Do others get a say? Family borrows $250,000 to buy a house, involving more than $50,000 a man, woman and child, and child. But that house is linked to the roads, receives signals, electricity, water, etc. We should be cautious with spending. But I am against ideology, especially when it obscures solutions.
"People created the Internet, government funded much of that."
Sorry cc, my bad. I thought you knew more of the history and the internals of the internet than you obviously do. With all those "supposed" credentials, one would think you would. It isn't "my Paul Baran, creator of the internet argument". It's simply history. The internet is built on the concept of packet switching. Without packet switching the internet would not exist. That came out of the head of Paul Baran. No one else. It was the core concept of the ARPANET which LATER (emphasis, not anger) became DARPA. "You don't appear to like it. Too bad." That's history. Paul Baran worked for Rand Corporation. Rand Corporation, a private company, was under contract to the DOD to create communications redundancies for defense purposes. Unlike HUD, HHS, DOL, Department of Education, and DOE, DOD exists as part of the proper role of government under the Constitution, A1S8. Those are all facts that you can't deny ... or that DARPA was part of DOD either, by the way, so thanks for reinforcing my point. And, oh ... you know someone from DARPA?! Oooooo! The rest of this part of your post translates to "I have a lawyer acquaintance" read: non sequitur and so what? - color me not impressed.
"Family borrows $250,000 to buy a house, involving more than $50,000 a man, woman and child, and child. But that house is linked to the roads, receives signals, electricity, water, etc. We should be cautious with spending."
Thank you for this. I really appreciate you saying that. It brings everything into focus. You do not see any difference between personal finance and public finance. It explains why you are happy with government the way it is. And yet you say we should be cautious with spending? Cautious with spending means that the FG does what it is Constitutionally charged with in A1S8 - you know, infrastructure that benefits the "general welfare" - like the things you list. Not HUD, not HHS, not ED, not DOE. 16T in debt is not "cautious with spending", cc, but you are fine with it. I see zero respect for OPM coming from you and that is the biggest problem I have with the left.
"Or are all governments bad"
The go-to meme of the left when they are out of gas ... and utter nonsense.
"But I am against ideology"
No you aren't. Your ideology is a big central government that blurs the lines that define a republic. It is dangerous. It is wrong. And it is doomed to failure.
Hate to burst your bubble, but your understanding of the what the Internet is worse than those who confuse the World Wide Web and the Internet. You are confusing a component of something with the thing, like a blind wise man describing just part of the elephant. Having read many RFCs and tried to technically explain the workings of the Internet, I am sure you understand that aspect. But that is not what the Internet is. It is a massive collection of networks that are interconnected. Until NSFNet was released to the world, it was not the Internet, as packet switching protocols are not the Internet. Baran's contribution may have been necessary, but like Eisenhower's vision for the highway system (as a "military necessity"), the inventor of a piece of the internal combustion engine does not deserve the credit given to Ike.
Also, to make myself clear, I was not confusing family spending with govt spending. I was just comparing the amounts of debt and showing that infrastructure exists and must get paid for somehow. And I am against most govt debt, mainly as it is a profit center for investors/wealthy. I am aware that most organizations and families borrow money, and I do not have a religious objection to it (just usury).
As to your jaundiced view of our current layout of our govt, good luck on that fight. Having been around Repubs and Dems making decisions, neither party is interested in your conception of the govt. I do not believe in centralization for centralization's sake as part of an ideology. I do not even believe that centralization works for most things. But I do think our democracy has been successful at propelling our nation into creating the amazing engine of new ideas. I do reject your doom and gloom about our nation, as I try to work and make it better. I think your conception of a republic has no bearing on what exists, and it isn't based on what is or is likely to be. (and probably wouldn't work). Good luck and good night!
"Hate to burst your bubble"
Not bursting anything. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the World Wide Web, the Internet, or my company's intranet. They are all packet-switched ... or they wouldn't exist. The Eisenhower interstate highway system analogy is complete non sequitur. A more apt statement would be that, without the IC engine, there would be no existance of an interstate highway system because there would be no need for one, not that the IC engine was some small part of the "Eisenhower vision". The IC engine was the building block that made everything after it (like the interstate highway system) necessary and therefore possible. Same with Baran's insight. I recommend you spend a little less time expounding on what you think you know and a little more time studying his history and the significance/criticality of his contribution - without which, this discussion wouldn't be taking place, because there would be no World Wide Web, no Internet, and no intranet. Get it? Yet?
"Also, to make myself clear, I was not confusing family spending with govt spending."
Yeah, you were. Conflating is more like it. When I take on the 250K of debt, that is my decision, my responsibility, and my choice. When my government hands me 50K of debt ... in addtion to taking my tax money, that is ... well, immoral and a crime.
"As to your jaundiced view of our current layout of our govt, good luck on that fight."
My view jaundiced? My view (and the vew of many others) is clear as to what our Constitution and its amendments say. What is jaundiced is what our FG has become through the evil that is the "Progressivism" of the 20th and now, 21st century.
"neither party is interested in your conception of the govt"
On that we most heartily agree.
"I do not even believe that centralization works for most things."
So you would also agree then that it is time to jetison HUD, HHS, ED, DOE, DOL, etc.? Answer if you dare or let it be rhetorical, machs nix to me.
Oh my G-d, you are right. Paul Baran was the sole reason that the Internet exists and nothing else matters. For this reason, I would like to condemn the horrid propaganda spread by someone who claimed that credit should be shared by others. That person is Paul Baran, shame on you. Amazingly, I failed to recognize that humans that create new ideas only count if they work for certain depts of fed govt. My relatives who spent years creating life saving treatments and ground breaking innovations, had the misfortune of working for the wrong parts of the govt--shame on them. I will renounce them forthwith and will stop giving them credit. Thank you for enlightening me ECGBERHT. And all the others who I know of who have taken part in developing the TCP/IP, HTML, etc. but failed to be paid in salaries, contracts or grants by the correct parts of a federal bureaucracy, I hereby, take back all of the laurels given to you.
And, you are exactly right, that most of our presidents and courts and congresses have been wrong, and the evil governors that do not renounce the authority of the overreach of the federal govnt (you know who you are Gov. Christie). Forget jurisprudence. Taking care of people by the federal government must be restricted solely to ECGBERHT considered understanding of the Commerce Clause and magical insights into the IX and Xth Amendments that also counteract any amendments that might have followed (you know who you are-- XIII -).
Hey, you know what I could do to ask forgiveness for valuing my friends, relatives and heroes, ECGBERHT? I could pass an amdt to overturn Marbury v. Madison. I nominate ECGBERHT and those who somehow have made sense that states have an inherent advantage over the federal govt in all things save the military. And forget complexity in govt., always simplify. How else could we understand it?
You win.
President Obama is getting exactly what he wanted. The evidence for this is that in 2011 he threatened to veto any legislation that would replace the sequester
.