More good economic news

[NowhereInTime]

This is not a democracy, it is a republic.  Officials being sworn in do not pledge to reflect the will of the people, they pledge to uphold the Constitution.  The ultimate purpose of government is to keep us secure, and to uphold the rule of law, not to distribute handouts.

We have rights as individuals that are unalienable - that cannot be taken away or denied, regardless of 'the will of the governed'.  We have a national government that was created by the states - it was to have limited power only in specific areas.

Why?  Because that's what is best for everyone, regardless of temporary whims, regardless of what some politician or group of politicians dream up and try to set in motion.  Regardless of what Obama thinks, the Constitution is never up for election.

The reason we are in the economic and social messes we are in is because much damage has been done to the Constitution.  The Federal government has expanded well beyond it's original role, and the results are this huge bloated intrusive wasteful leviathan that is way out of control.  Given to us over time by the very people who think as you do, that the end justifies the means, and they know better and are somehow smarter than the founders of the country.

You see the Constitution as essentially the Ten Commandments, handed down from on high with little to no room for interpretation, whereas most see it as a living, breathing document that is amendable to our consensus (hence the 27 amendments - that 27th was a helluva fight but two centuries later, we nailed it down!)

You also keep emphasizing "the states" as creating the country rather than the revolutionaries who dreamed, consented, and fought for these rights.  Not to mention there weren't 50 of them at the founding but there are now, so, do these 37 newbies now supercede the federal government, as well? Counter intuitive.  I think the issue of states versus nation was settled over 150 years ago, first by Lincoln then nearly a century ago by Wilson. 

Conservatives have done none of that.  I debunked your idea that the Conservatives are the 1% or run Wall St or the banks or the big international corporations long ago. 

No you didn't.  You couldn't possibly because it's not true.  Ask the Walton family or the Koch brothers, or for that matter Donald Trump about who the 1%'ers are.
And yes, repealing Glass Steagall was a conservative initiative, so was merger deregulation under Reagan, and what, precisely was Christopher Cox' leanings during his ambivalent tenure at SEC?

[PB the Deplorable]

You see the Constitution as essentially the Ten Commandments, handed down from on high with little to no room for interpretation, whereas most see it as a living, breathing document that is amendable to our consensus (hence the 27 amendments - that 27th was a helluva fight but two centuries later, we nailed it down!)...

Yes, there is an Amendment process. 

If the neo-Fascists want to change something, they should go through that process instead of telling us they have a pen a phone and they are going to do whatever they please.

[PB the Deplorable]

... You also keep emphasizing "the states" as creating the country rather than the revolutionaries who dreamed, consented, and fought for these rights.  Not to mention there weren't 50 of them at the founding but there are now, so, do these 37 newbies now supercede the federal government, as well?...

Not supersede federal responsibilities, retain their own power and responsibilities.  I realize you want Obama to be a 'Progressive' dictator, but the country was set up precisely so that would not happen.  It was set up so that power was spread around and major changes weren't made unless there was broad consensus. 

It's referred to as separation of powers. 


The Federal government was granted certain limited powers.  So that we DIDN'T get a king or dictator.  Power at the Federal level was split among the House (elected directly by the people), the Senate (appointed by the States), the President (elected by the people through the Electoral College - which ensured a few big population centers alone didn't decide the election), and the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments).  Only the House was elected 'democratically'.

The responsibilities not granted the Federal government were retained by the states and by the people, as per the 10th Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United Stats by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Look how far we are from that.  It's as though the 10th has been completely written out.

... I think the issue of states versus nation was settled over 150 years ago, first by Lincoln then nearly a century ago by Wilson...

The issue of whether States can succeed was settled by Lincoln and the Civil War.

Wilson's 17th Amendment was a mistake.  It was sold to the American people as 'more' democracy (directly electing Senators rather than appointed by the States), but it was really a power grab by the Federal government.  Like Obama, Wilson despised the Constitution.  Like Obama, he thought it was in the way of all the 'good' he wanted to do.  Like Obama, he spent his time scheming on how to get around it.  Like Obama, he created much damage and the country would have been much better off without him.

The 17th amendment should be repealed.

[Quick Karl]

You see the Constitution as essentially the Ten Commandments, handed down from on high with little to no room for interpretation, whereas most see it as a living, breathing document that is amendable to our consensus (hence the 27 amendments - that 27th was a helluva fight but two centuries later, we nailed it down!)

You also keep emphasizing "the states" as creating the country rather than the revolutionaries who dreamed, consented, and fought for these rights.  Not to mention there weren't 50 of them at the founding but there are now, so, do these 37 newbies now supercede the federal government, as well? Counter intuitive.  I think the issue of states versus nation was settled over 150 years ago, first by Lincoln then nearly a century ago by Wilson. 

No you didn't.  You couldn't possibly because it's not true.  Ask the Walton family or the Koch brothers, or for that matter Donald Trump about who the 1%'ers are.
And yes, repealing Glass Steagall was a conservative initiative, so was merger deregulation under Reagan, and what, precisely was Christopher Cox' leanings during his ambivalent tenure at SEC?

Not supersede federal responsibilities, retain their own power and responsibilities.  I realize you want Obama to be a 'Progressive' dictator, but the country was set up precisely so that would not happen.  It was set up so that power was spread around and major changes weren't made unless there was broad consensus. 

It's referred to as separation of powers. 


The Federal government was granted certain limited powers.  So that we DIDN'T get a king or dictator.  Power at the Federal level was split among the House (elected directly by the people), the Senate (appointed by the States), the President (elected by the people through the Electoral College - which ensured a few big population centers alone didn't decide the election), and the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments).  Only the House was elected 'democratically'.

The responsibilities not granted the Federal government were retained by the states and by the people, as per the 10th Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United Stats by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

Look how far we are from that.  It's as though the 10th has been completely written out.


The issue of whether States can succeed was settled by Lincoln and the Civil War.

Wilson's 17th Amendment was a mistake.  It was sold to the American people as 'more' democracy (directly electing Senators rather than appointed by the States), but it was really a power grab by the Federal government.  Like Obama, Wilson despised the Constitution.  Like Obama, he thought it was in the way of all the 'good' he wanted to do.  Like Obama, he spent his time scheming on how to get around it.  Like Obama, he created much damage and the country would have been much better off without him.

The 17th amendment should be repealed.

FOR CHRISSAKES READ The Creation of the American Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409865784&sr=1-1&keywords=the+creation+of+the+american+republic

"One of the half dozen most important books ever written about the American Revolution."--New York Times Book Review

People on both sides of the sewer could learn a lot, if they wanted to.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I debunked your idea that the Conservatives are the 1% or run Wall St or the banks or the big international corporations long ago...

... No you didn't.  You couldn't possibly because it's not true.  Ask the Walton family or the Koch brothers, or for that matter Donald Trump about who the 1%'ers are...

Actually, I did.  To validate your worldview, you seem to desperately need the 1%ers to all be Conservatives.  They aren't.  Far from it.

Yes, the handful of people you selected for mention are in the 1%.  So to you that means everyone else in the top 1% has the same thoughts and opinions as they do?  What if someone else had a different list naming only Soros, Ellison, Gates, and Buffett - should the obvious conclusion be that the 1%ers are all Democrats? 

There are 300 million people in this country, so 1% of that would be 3 million people.  A pretty large group who may not even have much in common other than wealth to be painted with such a broad brush.

That's a good question, who are the 1%?...


... So the 1% people in the US as far as amount of wealth owned.  Just taking that top 1%, there must be different categories.  I imagine much of the wealth in that top 1% is held by a smaller percent of that group - it's not spread evenly within that 1%.  The media and the politicians would have us believe they are all or mostly all CEOs. 

I would suggest the people within that 1% are people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, some of the other tycoons whose start up or once small business has become huge - Ellison, Schmidt and Brin, the WalMart heirs.  Others are some of these ballplayers, big names of the Hollywood Left, some rock stars.  And sure, plenty of CEOs.

There are a lot of Liberal Democrats on that list.

Another group that make up the 1% are large ranches and family farms.  The land as become valuable, but these people often don't make that much as far as annual income.  A lot of the time when the owner dies  they have to sell them to pay Estate taxes.  So our family farms continue to die out.

Ever wonder why Gates and Buffett are always out clamoring for higher taxes?  It's because most of their wealth will never be taxed.  Their vast wealth consists of stock shares in their companies, and this is not taxed until the shares are cashed out and sold.  They will cash in a very small percentage of them in their lifetime.  The shares are held in non-taxable trusts, the ownership and management of which are passed on to heirs tax free when these people die.  The only thing ever taxed are salaries paid out of these trusts.  The Kennedy family money works the same way.  Maybe this massive loophole should be looked into.

The way it works on Wall St is the CEO and other very senior execs run those companies like they own them, and have control of the Board of Directors.  These Boards are made up of a few of the firms top execs, their lawyer, execs or retired execs of other companies, outside fund investors that own shares.  Most shares are held by investments funds, such as those that run 401k plans, money market funds, places like Goldman Sachs, and other organizations.  Executive compensation is determined by a sub-committee of the Board of Directors.  As cronies of the company's CEO and executives, the compensation committee members fork over huge amounts of 'compensation' to them.  It's all ok because these same board members are getting similar deals from the boards of their companies.  The big fund investors don't mind because they are also doing and getting the same at their companies. 

It's all one big racket of these thieves ripping each others shareholders off to approve these disgusting salaries for each other.

Once they've secured theirs, they move on to the bribing of government officials through 'lobbying' and 'campaign contributions' - they give/pay off both sides, so they have influence no matter who is in office.  None of this is Capitalism, it's crony capitalism.   Another name for it is Fascism.  This is neither Conservative nor Liberal, it's greed.  These people for the most part are not ideological, and when they are it's a pretty mixed bag. 


So reading the list of people in the Top 1% we have the entertainers, certain outspoken rich like Gates, Buffett, Soros, the Silicon Valley honchos, the greedy Wall Streeters.  Hardly limited to a bunch of Conservatives.

And I'd add that the top CEO's are hardly all Conservatives.  Just take a look at which party the Fortune 500 contributes the most to.

It also seems like politicians go to DC and come back rich.  Or, like Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi from my area, they go there rich and come back opulently rich.  Look the way Rahm Emanuel made his money, or Algore.  There are some 300 former Congressmen and women working as lobbyists, including Oakland's own Ron 'Red' Dellums.  I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans too - dethroned House Majority Leader Eric Cantor just got a Wall St deal.  I'd guess most the above are 1%ers.  (I know Delluns isn't, he's another Leftwing Democrat that thought taxes were for the little people, but the IRS finally caught up to him and didn't leave him with much after collecting what he owed)

I left out one of the groups who make up the 1% from my post the other day - the Trial Lawyers.

The folks that sue the shit out of anyone they can for whatever they can think of - hoping to find a compliant jury to agree with them and award huge damages and massive fees.  The damages are split up among the plaintiffs - in a class action lawsuit they get about $10 each, or maybe a coupon - and lawyers get the rest along with huge fee awards.

Since at least the Reagan Administration the Rs have been pushing Tort Reform, but to no avail.  These leeches are 100% Liberal Democrats, they contribute heavily to the Dems political campaigns, and the Dems protect their little rackets.

One of them was named John Edwards.

So no, the 1%ers are not all Conservatives.  Not even close.

But feel free to bring it up again in a few months.

[NowhereInTime]

FOR CHRISSAKES READ The Creation of the American Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409865784&sr=1-1&keywords=the+creation+of+the+american+republic

"One of the half dozen most important books ever written about the American Revolution."--New York Times Book Review

People on both sides of the sewer could learn a lot, if they wanted to.

Ok, fine.  I will go get a copy and read it. 

[NowhereInTime]

Actually, I did.  To validate your worldview, you seem to desperately need the 1%ers to all be Conservatives.  They aren't.  Far from it.

Yes, the handful of people you selected for mention are in the 1%.  So to you that means everyone else in the top 1% has the same thoughts and opinions as they do?  What if someone else had a different list naming only Soros, Ellison, Gates, and Buffett - should the obvious conclusion be that the 1%ers are all Democrats? 

There are 300 million people in this country, so 1% of that would be 3 million people.  A pretty large group who may not even have much in common other than wealth to be painted with such a broad brush.


And I'd add that the top CEO's are hardly all Conservatives.  Just take a look at which party the Fortune 500 contributes the most to.

It also seems like politicians go to DC and come back rich.  Or, like Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi from my area, they go there rich and come back opulently rich.  Look the way Rahm Emanuel made his money, or Algore.  There are some 300 former Congressmen and women working as lobbyists, including Oakland's own Ron 'Red' Dellums.  I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans too - dethroned House Majority Leader Eric Cantor just got a Wall St deal.  I'd guess most the above are 1%ers.  (I know Delluns isn't, he's another Leftwing Democrat that thought taxes were for the little people, but the IRS finally caught up to him and didn't leave him with much after collecting what he owed)


So no, the 1%ers are not all Conservatives.  Not even close.

But feel free to bring it up again in a few months.

I will. You know damn well that most of those 3 million people are not only conservative but actively support Tea Party agenda. You want to throw Soros and Buffett at me?  Fine.  I'll even spot you 90% of Hollywood.  When the fresh numbers come out we will see, again, that it is conservative interests driving repressive economics and politics.

[Quick Karl]

Ok, fine.  I will go get a copy and read it.

Thank you. 

Free Market Capitalism as conceived by The Founders is NOT the Wall Street/DC Vulture Capitalism of today, and a Republic is NOT a democracy.

I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did.

Every convicted felon is innocent, just ask them...

[PB the Deplorable]

I will. You know damn well that most of those 3 million people are not only conservative but actively support Tea Party agenda. You want to throw Soros and Buffett at me?  Fine.  I'll even spot you 90% of Hollywood.  When the fresh numbers come out we will see, again, that it is conservative interests driving repressive economics and politics.

Oh bullshit.  The Conservatives are mostly small business owners, and people who get up every morning and go to work at their jobs, farmers, ranchers, etc.

The 1% are trial lawyers, politicians who have enriched themselves, Hollywood folks, ball players, other entertainers, and people who run huge corporations.  A very large percentage of these people support Liberal 'Progressive' Democrats.

The huge corporations work hand-in-hand with the DC crowd, scratching each others backs.  Tax loopholes and a lax regulatory environment for their specific interests in exchange for campaign cash.  And who is the DC crowd - it's the Party of Government (D's), and phony establishment R's.  A group you are very comfortable supporting.  Few 1%ers are the reformers, the Tea Party, the Conservatives, the Libertarians.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Wilson's 17th Amendment was a mistake.  It was sold to the American people as 'more' democracy (directly electing Senators rather than appointed by the States), but it was really a power grab by the Federal government.

To blame Wilson for that is absolute balderdash. Presidents can't amend the Constitution all by their lonesome selves, for Pete's sake, and the idea for the 17th Amendment didn't originate with him by a long shot. In fact, Oregon and Nebraska passed laws calling for the direct election of senators in 1908 and by 1910, thirty-one state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment to allow direct elections. That all took place well before Wilson was elected. 

It sounds like you're citing without attribution, again, because the idea that Wilson used some sort of mysterious dictatorial power to force ratification of the amendment appears to be just another one of Glenn Beck's delusional fantasies.

It's your right to hate on people whose political philosophies differ from yours, but you really should get your facts straight so you can hate on them for legitimate reasons. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... it is conservative interests driving repressive economics and politics.

It is Conservatives who are attempting to defend our freedom, liberty and Constitution against those who would destroy them.  It is the Conservatives who want to get us back to economic freedom and opportunity, known as free market capitalism.

[PB the Deplorable]

To blame Wilson for that is absolute balderdash. Presidents can't amend the Constitution all by their lonesome selves, for Pete's sake, and the idea for the 17th Amendment didn't originate with him by a long shot. In fact, Oregon and Nebraska passed laws calling for the direct election of senators in 1908 and by 1910, thirty-one state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment to allow direct elections. That all took place well before Wilson was elected. 

It sounds like you're citing without attribution, again, because the idea that Wilson used some sort of mysterious dictatorial power to force ratification of the amendment appears to be just another one of Glenn Beck's delusional fantasies.

It's your right to hate on people whose political philosophies differ from yours, but you really should get your facts straight so you can hate on them for legitimate reasons.

It takes a leader in position to do so to make things happen.  Wilson was very much a driving force and used his position to help push it through.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

It takes a leader in position to do so to make things happen.  Wilson was very much a driving force and used his position to help push it through.

First you call it "Wilson's 17th Amendment," and now you say he was just the driving force who pushed it through. It can't be both, so which is it? 

And please explain how he forced the country to unwillingly accept something most of the state legislatures and many sitting Senators already favored, and provide solid historical evidence from credible sources--not stuff Glenn Beck imagined in one of his fever dreams--to back it up.

And don't try to change the subject by turning the discussion into a general critique of Wilson's policies.  I'm not interested in defending him, because he had many flaws; I'm interested only in the historical accuracy of your assertion.

[Quick Karl]

PaperBoy, I agree with a lot of your opinions, but you need to read the book too!



Some of it will surprise you, as it did me, and some of it will surprise NowhereInTime too!

The bottom line is that we are NOT living in the political, financial, or social system they contemplated - but if people don't really know what that is, their arguments for or against, often lack merit.

The Founders, while imperfect, and men of their times replete with the flaws of those times, were not profit-at-any-cost or at the cost of their country or their countrymen, kinds of people.

[paladin1991]

FOR CHRISSAKES READ The Creation of the American Republic

http://www.amazon.com/Creation-American-Republic-1776-1787/dp/0807847232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409865784&sr=1-1&keywords=the+creation+of+the+american+republic

"One of the half dozen most important books ever written about the American Revolution."--New York Times Book Review

People on both sides of the sewer could learn a lot, if they wanted to.

Is that available in Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin and a half dozen other languages?  You know, like the election materials?

[paladin1991]

Ok, fine.  I will go get a copy and read it.

I'm in.  I'll Amazon a copy.

[Quick Karl]

I'm in.  I'll Amazon a copy.

Damn - I am going to have to type in large font more often! 

Honestly, it's a fantastic book and it will surprise people on both sides of the sewer!

[Quick Karl]

Is that available in Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin and a half dozen other languages?  You know, like the election materials?

I don't know if it is, but it should be.

[West of the Rockies]

Damn - I am going to have to type in large font more often! 

Honestly, it's a fantastic book and it will surprise people on both sides of the sewer!

Wait, would this mean I have to examine my own beliefs and assumptions?  (Isn't it intriguing how those on both sides of the aisle think they can do this but The Other Side cannot?)

A mind is not like a parachute (which is stringy and made of cheap nylon!). It's like an anvil:  forged with cheap overseas steel, heavy, and really painful if you drop it on your foot!

Seriously though, maybe we could start a BG book club and read this book first... Sounds interesting.

[Quick Karl]

Wait, would this mean I have to examine my own beliefs and assumptions?  (Isn't it intriguing how those on both sides of the aisle think they can do this but The Other Side cannot?)

A mind is not like a parachute (which is stringy and made of cheap nylon!). It's like an anvil:  forged with cheap overseas steel, heavy, and really painful if you drop it on your foot!

Seriously though, maybe we could start a BG book club and read this book first... Sounds interesting.

People on both sides of the debate will be surprised by what they read. It is a pretty comprehensive book so it's not something that can be read in a weekend, but the subsequent discussions ought to be fantastic.