Checks and Balances

[AGBF]

Noonersmom suggested a discussion on the proposed change to cease the tradition of unlimited debate in the United States Senate. I am on my way to my daughter''s soccer practice, but I''ll catch y''all later .

Deb

 

[AGBF]

OK...I am back between trips to the soccer field and I see no one picked up the slack in my absence .

My opinion is that the executive branch has become far, far too powerful over time, emascualating the legislative branch. I think the President has gradually appropriated to himself more and more of what the writers of the Constitution meant to appropriate to the Congress. The most obvious example is, in my opinion, the right to declare war. FDR, after the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, went to Congress and asked them to declare war. Since then many presidents have waged wars whenever and wherever they liked. Some have, indeed, asked Congress for its blessing. Others have failed to consult with Congress until they needed more money to wage their wars...then, with American troops committed overseas, the President would blackmail the Congress into funding his fait accompli.

I would like to see the power of the executive branch severely curtailed and the power of the Congress restored. I think the President's power is unchecked at the moment and that that is very, very dangerous.

Deborah

 

[strmrdr]

All the branches of the US gov have stolen way too much power from the people which is where it belongs.

What can be done about it is the question.

 

[lostdog]

Anything that means that the 51% get to jam whatever they like down the throats of the 49% is a bad move.

And those supporting this because the "good guys" are in the 51% right now will be screaming bloody murder the second the tables turn.

One argument is that "a simple majority would be more productive in passing laws". And that''s going to be a good thing? I''d say that''s exactly the problem.

And further, Republicans who favor this change don''t realize that it''s actually going to divide their party more than it helps it.

But it''s a mistake, no matter who is in power.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 5/3/2005 11:20:46 PM
Author: Feydakin
This question obviously revolves around the current Judicial nominee process.. Do you really think that it''s acceptable to simply refuse to allow judicial nominees to come up for a vote?? Looking at the situation as it is now, this can effectively end any further legislation since a group of people could simply refuse to allow things out of debate and into a vote..

Realistically, do you think it takes months, or years, to debate a candidate before he can be voted on??

As for the check and balances, the branch that currently has too much power is the juducial.. All it takes is one judge to decide something as thier ''interpretation'' of the law and it''s nearly impossible to get it changed.

Sometimes, I just have to laugh. Is it unacceptable that judicial nominees don''t come up for a vote? Oh, ree-lay?

Dude, study your history. Remember Abe Fortras? His mistake was coming down on the side keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion. So his nomination as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1968 was fillibustered and the nomination was withdrawn.

Mr. "Jesus is my co-pilot" Bill Frist also led fillibusters against Clinton''s judicial nominees. Short memory, eh?

As Mark Twain said: "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please."

You obviously are lacking in the facts department. Let me suggest a remedial course in logic. Here is your assignment. Please explain how US-manufactured drugs can be exported to Canada and then reimported right back at a lower price into the country where they were produced. Go ahead, discuss. Hot-Tub Tom Delay says he will never allow this to happen. Why?

Meanwhile, you might like to know that a few American agents in Colombia were recently caught with over ten kilos of coke, and others were caught with quite an arsenal.

Interestingly enough, all those Americans arrested by Colombian police are already back in the land of the free and home of the gnave. Why?

I''ve basically given up on links in this forum, because it appears that this is simply a question of whether you are a Packers or Patriots fan.

So if you have a brain wave, let me know and I''ll forward references. And if you are a flat-liner, no problem. Be happy. Since Dubya was elected, every single economic indicator is down, and every single measure of personal privacy has been violated. Energy prices are up. So are interest rates. No matter how you measure it, America is in serious economic trouble. Be happy.

And our foreign policy doesn''t look much better. How many bombings in Iraq just today? Again, ignore reality, be happy.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 5/7/2005 5:33:28 AM
Author: Richard Hughes



Dude, study your history. , every single economic indicator is down, and every single measure of personal privacy has been violated. Energy prices are up. So are interest rates. No matter how you measure it, America is in serious economic trouble. Be happy.

Dude, I suggest you study your history of interest rates. The lowest being during the Bush Admin. Facts in my re-fi/purchases to prove it. Also, low interest rates aren''t necessarily a good thing.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 5/7/2005 11:34:28 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 5/7/2005 5:33:28 AM
Author: Richard Hughes




Dude, study your history. , every single economic indicator is down, and every single measure of personal privacy has been violated. Energy prices are up. So are interest rates. No matter how you measure it, America is in serious economic trouble. Be happy.

Dude, I suggest you study your history of interest rates. The lowest being during the Bush Admin. Facts in my re-fi/purchases to prove it. Also, low interest rates aren''t necessarily a good thing.

Isn''t it interesting that the success ratings of US presidents correlate so well with the strength of the economy and gasoline prices? One nation under god? I can only guess which "god" we Americans choose to worship.... But that''s another topic.

 

[tanuki]

Yeah, it was interesting to see that out of 800 plus positions for federal judges in the entire country there were only ten or eleven being held up and 39 or so positions that Bush hadn''t even gotten around to proposing a nominee yet.

I''m not particularly in favor of the filibuster but I don''t know what the crisis is when there are so many open judicial positions that aren''t even with a nominee.

It''s like they are waiting to get rid of the filibuster then cram thru three times as many judges as are being contested now.

 

[movie zombie]

richard, i''ve been going crazy wondering why more people aren''t concerned re everything you mentioned. the US economic condition is in the pits with the G7 saying the US has got to get its deficit problem under control [remember when we had no deficit problem?!] and our civil liberties are eroded daily.

water is being privatized, $100M of taxpayer money has gone missing in iraq, our government continues to run drugs much to the detriment of our own citizens, and all anyone can think about is the missing bride-to-be, ms shiavo, or a 13 year old florida girl''s decision to have an abortion.

i was beginning to think it was me that had gone mad....please continue your posts.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/7/2005 5:33:28 AM
Author: Richard Hughes
(snip of a few somewhat harsh words)

Richard,

You appear to be losing your patience. It was your unending patience-that ability simply to refute every piece of verbiage thrown at you with quiet logic, no emotion-that was making me stare at you in wonderment. Now, did I warn you or didn''t I?

Your friend,
Deb

 

[Rank Amateur]

When a person beats his chest so vehemently, shouting about his "facts", it casts doubt on the person, the opinion, and the "facts".

 

[rubydick]

Date: 5/7/2005 11:34:28 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 5/7/2005 5:33:28 AM

Author: Richard Hughes



Dude, study your history. , every single economic indicator is down, and every single measure of personal privacy has been violated. Energy prices are up. So are interest rates. No matter how you measure it, America is in serious economic trouble. Be happy.

Dude, I suggest you study your history of interest rates. The lowest being during the Bush Admin. Facts in my re-fi/purchases to prove it. Also, low interest rates aren''t necessarily a good thing.

Dudette, study your history. But this time I''ll let someone else do my talking. I''ll let the President''s own office speak for me. And just so the source cannot be dismissed, I''ll provide one single link to back it up:

GPO Access: Economic Report of the President

Michael Kinsley:
More GOP Than the GOP

It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe, who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom, more often than Dad, who must play both roles.

It has not escaped notice that the Daddy Party has been fiscally misbehaving. But it hasn''t really sunk in how completely the Republicans have abandoned allegedly Republican values — if, in fact, they ever really had such values.

Our text today is the 2005 Economic Report of the President. I did this exercise a year ago, and couldn''t quite believe the results. But the 2005 data confirm it: The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn''t even close.

The values I''m referring to are widely shared. We all want prosperity, we oppose unemployment, we dislike inflation, we don''t enjoy paying taxes, etc. They''re Republican only in the sense that Republicans are supposed to treasure them more, and to be more reluctant to sacrifice them for other goals, such as equality or clean air.

Statistics in the Economic Report back to 1960 tell the story. And a consistent pattern over 45 years cannot be explained away by shorter-term factors, like war or who controls Congress. Maybe presidents can''t affect the economy much. But the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it.

Consider federal spending (a.k.a. "big government"). It has gone up an average of about $50 billion a year under presidents of both parties. But that breaks down as $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. If you assume that it takes a year for a president''s policies to take effect (so, for example, President Clinton is responsible for 2001 and George W. Bush takes over in 2002), Democrats have raised spending by $40 billion a year and Republicans by $55 billion.

Leaning over backward even further, let''s start our measurement in 1981, the date when Ronald Reagan took office on a platform of shrinking government and many Republicans believe that life as we know it began. The result: Democrats still have a better record at smaller government. Republican presidents added more government spending for each year they served, whether you credit them with the actual years they served or with the year that followed.

Now look at federal revenues (a.k.a. taxes). You can''t take it away from them: Republicans do cut taxes. Or rather, tax revenues go up under both parties, but only about half as fast under Republicans. This is true no matter when you start counting, or whether you give a president''s policies that extra year to take effect. It''s the only test of Republican economics that the Republicans win.

That is, they win if you consider lower federal revenues to be a victory. Sometimes Republicans say that cutting taxes will raise government revenues by stimulating the economy. And sometimes they say that lower revenues are good because they will lead (by some mysterious process) to lower spending.

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion. The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats. If you start counting in 1981 or attribute responsibility with a year''s delay, the numbers change, but the bottom line doesn''t: Democrats do Republican economics better than Republicans do.

As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let''s take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation.

From 1960 to 2005, the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars (in other words, taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. Measured from 1989, or with a one-year delay, or both, the results are similar. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income (that''s the statistic that puts money in your pocket): Democrats score about 30% higher.

Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 % versus 3.89% for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33% versus 6.38%). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.

Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year''s delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36%, while under Democrats it''s 4.57%. Congratulations.

 

[fire&ice]

You state "energy prices are on the rise - so are interest rates"

Interests rates have been at an historic low in modern ecocomic times. I don''t know of anything to refute this - certainly not what you posted. And, I guess the housing boom doesn''t support this either.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/7/2005 11

8:15 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
When a person beats his chest so vehemently, shouting about his ''facts'', it casts doubt on the person, the opinion, and the ''facts''.

You mean it makes *you* doubtful about said person. I am more interested in the message than in the delivery. Ronald Reagan was a charming man, but I disagreed with him on most everything. Abby Hoffman was (sorry to speak ill of the dead, Leonid) a bombastic boor, but I sure agreed with him on many things.

Deb

 

[Rank Amateur]

Hey Richard

You do realize that the text you copied was an opinion piece and not part of the GPO report, right?

The best you can do for "facts" is Michael Kinsley? Please.

What follows is the overview of the ACTUAL report. It is, of course, a load of partisan crapola, but at least I see and understand that fact as I read it.


In 2004, the U.S. economic recovery blossomed into a full-fledged
expansion, with strong output growth and steady improvement in the
labor market. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.4 percent
in 2004 for the year as a whole. About 2.2 million new payroll jobs
were created during 2004-the largest annual gain since 1999. The
unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent by year's end, below the
average of each of the past three decades. Inflation remained
moderate, especially excluding volatile energy prices. The U.S.
economy is on a solid footing for sustained growth in the years to
come.
This is a marked reversal from the economic situation the Nation
faced when President Bush came into office. Four years ago, the
economy was sliding into recession after the bursting of the high
-tech bubble of the 1990s. The economy was then affected by
revelations of corporate scandals, slow growth among our major
trading partners, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Business investment slowed sharply in late 2000 and remained soft
for more than two years. The economy lost over 900,000 jobs from
December 2000 to September 2001, and then almost another 900,000
jobs in the three months after the 9/11 attacks.
Prompt and decisive policy actions helped to counteract the effects
of these adverse shocks to the economy. Substantial tax relief
together with expansionary monetary policy provided stimulus to
aggregate demand that softened the recession and helped put the
economy on the path to recovery. In addition to providing timely
short-term stimulus, the President's pro-growth tax policies have
improved incentives for work and capital accumulation, thereby
fostering an environment conducive to long-term economic growth.
This Report discusses macroeconomic developments of the past year,
the Administration's forecast for the years to come, and several
topics related to salient economic issues.

 

[rubydick]

Rank Amateur,

Finally, someone who is willing to look at the evidence.

What you have reproduced is indeed the partisan crapola portion of the report. You''ve neglected to examine the numbers.

I actually detest much of what Kinsley has written in terms of opinion. The fact that he writes for Time is damning enough in my book. But let''s go back to the simple numbers. That was my point.

The numbers show that if you like Repbulican ideas (small government, better business climate), you''re better off voting Democrat.

Sometimes one has to stop tree-sniffing and step back a bit.

That''s what Kinsley did. I could have cited dozens of "liberal" sources. But I thought it would be better to let someone from the mainstream (read: corporate) press state the obvious.

Now rather than you attacking me, why don''t you prove Kinsley wrong? He''s on your side. Go ahead, show how the message is wrong, rather than the messenger.