Log in

View Full Version : Why Obama looks like a one-termer.



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Eric Stoner
12-10-2008, 01:19 PM
Our form of government is a R E P U B L I C an INDIRECT form of democracy. The purest form is direct voting on legislation a la Ancient Athens followed by Intiative and Referendum and the Town Hall Meeting. Our national government is a representative democracy.
Originally only the House of Representatives was directly elected by the "people" who were originally white males over 21 who owned property. The President was selected by the Electors of the Electoral College. Senators were selected by the State Legislatures of the various states.

Eric Stoner
12-10-2008, 01:27 PM
^^^ ah yes, but your 'worthless bags of protoplasm' do something very important that a lot of taxpaying citizens do not ... they overwhelmingly vote for politicians that promise to give them even larger gov't checks and/or additional 'free' gov't benefits !

America's becoming a more and more 'democratic' country is arguably leading to the same place as the Roman Empire's experiment with democracy ... 'Bread and Circuses'.

Actually, Rome veered back and forth from tyranny to relative democracy for its first 600 years. After Julius Ceasar and his dictatorship Augustus was the first Emperor. The input and influence of the Senate waxed and waned depending on who was Emperor at the time. "Bread and Circuses" was developed to keep the "mob" or "plebs" under control. As more and more slaves did more and more of the work, unemployment radically increased. Thus the "bread" to keep them from starving and the "circuses" to keep them entertained and distracted and prevent rebellion. The less democracy; the more "bread and circuses".

threlayer
12-10-2008, 03:30 PM
What nonsense is this? They made a decision it was the decision to have a country made up of all the 13 colonies and not just the ones above Virginia.

That may well have been the practice, without dispute. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say slaves are permitted in only specific states. Anyhow this is a peripheral issue, unless you want to pick at every little thing you see.

threlayer
12-10-2008, 03:34 PM
Our form of government is a R E P U B L I C an INDIRECT form of democracy. The purest form is direct voting on legislation a la Ancient Athens followed by Intiative and Referendum and the Town Hall Meeting. Our national government is a representative democracy.
Originally only the House of Representatives was directly elected by the "people" who were originally white males over 21 who owned property. The President was selected by the Electors of the Electoral College. Senators were selected by the State Legislatures of the various states.

Agreed. A republic is a very generic term signifying a country has no kings or such. Most countries of the world are now republics. Almost all democracies are representative ones. Even with the internet, pure democracies are just not possible in large societies.

Eric Stoner
12-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Agreed. A republic is a very generic term signifying a country has no kings or such. Most countries of the world are now republics. Almost all democracies are representative ones. Even with the internet, pure democracies are just not possible in large societies.

No, actually most countries that are " democratic " use some form of a Parliamentary system with or without some form of monarchy starting with the U.K. and all former Commonwealth countries e.g. Canada, India, Australia etc. Add in almost all of Europe plus Japan.

Real democratic republics are confined mostly to the U.S. and Latin America.

threlayer
12-11-2008, 09:10 AM
^^ Technically true. Note that European royalty, for the most part, do have limited, if any, effect on government decisions or operations. The Middle East is also a bit different, as a few leaders (kings sheiks, or whatever they call them) have tight control. Eg, the Kingdom of Jordan. To me any dictator, no matter the technical form of government, does not run a Democracy. I don't quite see why the Parlimentary for is so much more widely used than the Presidential form; it seems less stable, but maybe the resultant flexibility is better in some ways.

jester214
12-11-2008, 11:33 AM
That may well have been the practice, without dispute. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say slaves are permitted in only specific states. Anyhow this is a peripheral issue, unless you want to pick at every little thing you see.

A peripheral issue? If you mention something stupid, then trust me I'll bring attention to it.

threlayer
12-11-2008, 01:52 PM
OK, then, WHERE in the Constitution does it say slaves are permitted in only specific states. Or what law included this restriction?

------------
You know, to me it seems you are may be getting too involved in these posts. It is just typing, after all. This is NOT personal to you; I don't know you and I never will. I'm not trying to manipulate your mind, and we're not working on a historical document which will be scrutinized by politicians who will then make decisions based partly what we type here.

Melonie
12-11-2008, 03:41 PM
^^^ states rights i.e. enumerated powers (or lack thereof)

glambman
12-11-2008, 03:42 PM
It's called the 10th amendment. Also, there is a provision about slavery, that importing them ends in 1808. I think it is Article 9.

threlayer
12-11-2008, 04:33 PM
...it seems to oppose the general welfare...

jester214
12-11-2008, 06:09 PM
OK, then, WHERE in the Constitution does it say slaves are permitted in only specific states. Or what law included this restriction?

------------
You know, to me it seems you are may be getting too involved in these posts. It is just typing, after all. This is NOT personal to you; I don't know you and I never will. I'm not trying to manipulate your mind, and we're not working on a historical document which will be scrutinized by politicians who will then make decisions based partly what we type here.

You said 'they weren't brave enough to make a decision on slavery in the constitution'.

That is ridiculous, because making any decision would have offended someone and maybe kept them out of the union. Calling it illegal would have kept about half of them out of the union. It had nothing to do with "braver" which made it a stupid thing to say.

Then feel free to ignore me, or just not respond if you have an issue with what you say. If you put something out there that I disagree with, I'll probably say something.

glambman
12-11-2008, 06:52 PM
...it seems to oppose the general welfare...

ummmm the general welfare clause didn't exist until the 20th century. So, really, it doesn't oppose it.

threlayer
12-11-2008, 07:55 PM
ummmm the general welfare clause didn't exist until the 20th century. So, really, it doesn't oppose it.

Well, that's wrong. That is in the Preamble. I'm looking at a picture of the original, and it is definitely in there. Willing to upload it if necessary. But admittedly it is non-specific....

Also in the Preamble is another clause which seems to fly in the face of slavery "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Guess you have to be one of the "in crowd" to participate in that.

"The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended."

threlayer
12-11-2008, 08:02 PM
It's called the 10th amendment. Also, there is a provision about slavery, that importing them ends in 1808. I think it is Article 9.

There are only Seven Articles.

"The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention."

threlayer
12-11-2008, 08:19 PM
You said 'they weren't brave enough to make a decision on slavery in the constitution'.

That is ridiculous, because making any decision would have offended someone and maybe kept them out of the union.

That's right, brave in the face of adversity. I didnt say it wasn't smart for the times.

"The contentious issue of slavery was too controversial to be resolved during the convention. As a result, the original Constitution contained four provisions tacitly allowing slavery to continue for the next 20 years. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of such persons, Section 2 of Article IV prohibited the provision of assistance to escaping persons and required their return if successful and Section 2 of Article I defined other persons as "three-fifths" of a person for calculations of each state's official population. Article V prohibited any amendments or legislation changing the provision regarding slave importation until 1808, thereby giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. The failure to do so was a contributing factor to the Civil War."

Yes. And every president up till Lincoln did not want to handle it or tried but failed. It took a horrible war to resolve it, a war that had far more dead/maimed than any other war this country has ever been in. The issue officially was "states' rights" as Mel mentioned above, but about the only rights they were concerned with was over slavery.



Calling it illegal would have kept about half of them out of the union. It had nothing to do with "braver" which made it a stupid thing to say.

Then feel free to ignore me, or just not respond if you have an issue with what you say. If you put something out there that I disagree* with, I'll probably say something.

I don't mind reading your posts, and I ignore what I need to. But when you turn angry(?) and try to insult me, or others, then I don't think too much of you. You said something I disagreed with, and I'm calling you down on it. Same as * above.

A more reasonable thing to say would have been . "i disagree because" or "this is where you are wrong". Not, "you said something stupid."

eagle2
12-11-2008, 10:09 PM
^^^ horses#!t ! Payroll a.k.a. Social Security and medicare taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. are all targeted to fund particular programs which are not at issue during elections (so far at least).


Wrong Melonie. The Social Security surplus is used by Congress for whatever they want. Funding from gas taxes are at issue during elections. That's about all John McCain talked about (earmarks) when he wasn't smearing his opponent.



The election issues that ARE being voted on involve increased taxation of the 'rich', increased social welfare program spending, bailout policy, environmental policy etc. - none of which have any direct negative consequences on Americans whose incomes are low enough that they aren't required to pay the income taxes which actually fund these programs at issue in the election. However, some direct positive consequences are involved i.e. social welfare program generosity.

Election issues being voted on affect everyone in this country, not just the rich. Everyone breathes the air in this country. Everyone drinks water and eats food that is grown in this country. Environmental issues affect everyone, not just rich people. I don't want my air and water being polluted. I want my government to pass laws to reduce pollution and increase the safety of the food I eat and the products I buy. If this goes against your ideology, that's just too bad. There are plenty of poor people that have a much bigger stake in whose elected to office than you do. I would bet that many of the soldiers on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan don't earn enough money to pay income tax. They have a much bigger stake in whose elected than you do. All Americans have a stake in who is elected to government and all law-abiding Americans have a right to select who governs them.

Melonie
12-12-2008, 03:59 AM
Wrong Melonie. The Social Security surplus is used by Congress for whatever they want

a technical but very important difference. Congress BORROWS money from the Social Security Administration in the form of special bonds. Congress can then spend the borrowed money. However, the Social Security Administration special bonds must be paid back with interest, the same case as with Treasury bonds. Thus technically all tax revenues collected under the heading of Social Security are still under the authority of the SSA, and the SSA is 'earning money' for the Social Security system by loaning out the surplus to Congress.

I'll grant you that Obama's proposed changes to SSI taxes would break this line of demarcation ... and essentially co-mingle SSI tax revenues with general income tax revenues as well as co-mingle SSI payouts with general gov't expenditures.



I want my government to pass laws to reduce pollution and increase the safety of the food I eat and the products I buy. If this goes against your ideology, that's just too bad

unfortunately, the two points are contradictory. The more regulations the US gov't passes affecting US farm costs of production, the more US farms go out of business and the more food is imported from ultra-low cost ultra high pollution zero food safety offshore sources a la China. The food industry is no different in this respect from manufacturing industries.

Strict US regulations on producers, but strict regulations that cannot be extended beyond the US border, do NOT reduce pollution or increase safety on a global level. All they do is relocate the pollution source and the unsafe working conditions / product safety beyond the US border ! And arguably they actually increase total pollution and decrease total worker / product safety, because the previous US products generated less pollution and greater safety than the offshore sources that replace them !

So from the point of view of an objective global analysis, the laws you want passed cause the loss / outsourcing of US businesses and jobs ... and arguably cause the world to be more polluted and the now imported food eaten by the 90% of Americans who can't afford to pay 50% price premiums for US 'organic' food to be less safe as well !

This is exactly the reason that the founding fathers wanted to restrict voting 'rights' to those Americans who understood the real impact of what they were voting on !!!

~

glambman
12-12-2008, 08:54 AM
Well, that's wrong. That is in the Preamble. I'm looking at a picture of the original, and it is definitely in there. Willing to upload it if necessary. But admittedly it is non-specific....

Also in the Preamble is another clause which seems to fly in the face of slavery "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Guess you have to be one of the "in crowd" to participate in that.

"The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended."

The GWC that is ruining our country and used to justify all the crap is not the GWC of the Preamble, it is the GWC in the Taxing and Spending Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause


There are only Seven Articles.

"The Constitution consists of a preamble, seven original articles, twenty-seven amendments, and a paragraph certifying its enactment by the constitutional convention."

Article 1 Section 9 stopped slaves coming into America in 1808.

threlayer
12-12-2008, 09:16 AM
That's probably the correct clause. The Constitution interpreter of last resort is the United States Supreme Court, but a lot of other courts try their hand at it. And a lot of things need to be interepreted in current terms; for one simple example nowhere does the Constitution mention that the govt can provide an Air Force, just an Army and a Navy. Here it is the 'original intent' that extends its powers.

glambman
12-12-2008, 10:39 AM
But the US Constitution provides for the common defense, so USAF would technically be ok. But it makes no provision for our govt to pay people under all the programs we have (and corporations too).

The Interstate Commerce Clause is justifiable for setting federal standards so all states play by the same rules, but even that has been abused. x in y state buys z from a state, so regulate it. sheeez

eagle2
12-12-2008, 08:01 PM
unfortunately, the two points are contradictory. The more regulations the US gov't passes affecting US farm costs of production, the more US farms go out of business and the more food is imported from ultra-low cost ultra high pollution zero food safety offshore sources a la China. The food industry is no different in this respect from manufacturing industries.

No they're not. The United States has stricter agriculture regulations than most other countries and we're the leading agriculture producer in the world. China imports much of their food and most likely always will. China has close to four times as many people as the United States living on approximately the same amount of land.

You have this mistaken view that every single producer of every single product spends all of their time trying to find the country with the lowest wages and least amount of regulations to move their production or farm facilities. That's not the way things work in the real world. There are plenty of countries with high wages and environmental regulations that are leaders in manufacturing and agricultural production.



Strict US regulations on producers, but strict regulations that cannot be extended beyond the US border, do NOT reduce pollution or increase safety on a global level. All they do is relocate the pollution source and the unsafe working conditions / product safety beyond the US border ! And arguably they actually increase total pollution and decrease total worker / product safety, because the previous US products generated less pollution and greater safety than the offshore sources that replace them !

The United States can and does regulate products produced in foreign countries and exported to the United States. All automobiles sold in the US must meet US safety and environmental standards. The same goes for other consumer products and food imports.



So from the point of view of an objective global analysis, the laws you want passed cause the loss / outsourcing of US businesses and jobs ... and arguably cause the world to be more polluted and the now imported food eaten by the 90% of Americans who can't afford to pay 50% price premiums for US 'organic' food to be less safe as well !

Your statement is based on your flawed thinking as mentioned above. Again, producers have other criteria in choosing their locations besides low wages and lack of regulation.



This is exactly the reason that the founding fathers wanted to restrict voting 'rights' to those Americans who understood the real impact of what they were voting on !!!
~

I'm sure the founding father would want voters to base their views on what goes on in the real world rather than what comes out of conservative/libertarian think tanks.

Melonie
12-13-2008, 05:19 AM
we're the leading agriculture producer in the world. China imports much of their food and most likely always will

Again a huge technical point. Yes the US grows immense amounts of food. But much of the food we grow today does not wind up on supermarket shelves or dinner tables. Instead it winds up being blended with gasoline. Based on your concerns about food safety, I assumed that the food products of interest were things like fruits and vegetables.

For a fact, US growers have been closing down fruit and vegetable operations for several years ... in no small part due to stricter gov't regulations in regard to paying farm workers, stricter gov't regulations increasing the cost of 'approved' pesticides etc. As a result, most of the fruits and vegetables you now see in the WalMart produce section are imported from Mexico or China !!! The obvious reason is that the shipping cost premium now far outweighs the wage and benefit cost differential for farm workers (with US minimum wage + unemployment + comp costs now = nearly $9 an hour), the cost difference of using DDT or some other highly effective pesticide that is now illegal in the USA etc. And the vast majority of these imported dinner table food products are NOT subjected to USFDA inspection !



So, as I pointed out earlier, when it comes to the lettuce, tomatoes etc. now going into tonight's dinner salad, for most people this means that these vegetables were picked by $2 an hour foreigners instead of $9 US farm workers ... that these vegetables were treated with a highly effective but nasty pesticide that is now illegal in the USA ... and that (as proven by countless news stories over the past couple of years) the risk of such products being 'unsafe' has risen significantly !

But yeah if you are talking about US corn destined for ethanol refineries, America grows the best 'cow corn' in the world !!!

threlayer
12-13-2008, 02:24 PM
^^ There is a big seasonal factor in this that you didn't mention. And so a lot of imported foods come from countries closer or south of the equator, like Chile. Even then, sometimes I cannot find certain foods in stock for a few weeks. I find the bigger supermakrkets use in-season foods from nearby their local areas, while places like Walmart, Aldi, etc do import a lot regardless of the season. It's a scale factor for them, plus they have their own buyer facilities over there already.

People still discriminate against lower quality veggies and fruits. Personally I do not trust any foods from China and I will avoid them regardless of price. The FDA or Customs of whomever does the inspections are vastly under-manned due to volume and technology. Not to mention the underhandedness and criminality of many Chinese sources. As we have seen. Not to say that other countries don't have some problems, as does even the USA.

eagle2
12-14-2008, 09:33 PM
Again a huge technical point. Yes the US grows immense amounts of food. But much of the food we grow today does not wind up on supermarket shelves or dinner tables. Instead it winds up being blended with gasoline. Based on your concerns about food safety, I assumed that the food products of interest were things like fruits and vegetables.

For a fact, US growers have been closing down fruit and vegetable operations for several years ... in no small part due to stricter gov't regulations in regard to paying farm workers, stricter gov't regulations increasing the cost of 'approved' pesticides etc. As a result, most of the fruits and vegetables you now see in the WalMart produce section are imported from Mexico or China !!! The obvious reason is that the shipping cost premium now far outweighs the wage and benefit cost differential for farm workers (with US minimum wage + unemployment + comp costs now = nearly $9 an hour), the cost difference of using DDT or some other highly effective pesticide that is now illegal in the USA etc. And the vast majority of these imported dinner table food products are NOT subjected to USFDA inspection !

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-16-imported-food_N.htm

So, as I pointed out earlier, when it comes to the lettuce, tomatoes etc. now going into tonight's dinner salad, for most people this means that these vegetables were picked by $2 an hour foreigners instead of $9 US farm workers ... that these vegetables were treated with a highly effective but nasty pesticide that is now illegal in the USA ... and that (as proven by countless news stories over the past couple of years) the risk of such products being 'unsafe' has risen significantly !

But yeah if you are talking about US corn destined for ethanol refineries, America grows the best 'cow corn' in the world !!!

Your article states that imports account for about 13% of the annual diet, which would mean the other 87% comes from domestic sources. It also state that about 1/4 of our fruit is imported, which would mean 3/4 of our fruit comes from the US. Probably most of the 1/4 of our fruit that we import is due to the fruit being out of season in the US, as the relayer pointed out, rather than cheaper labor and fewer regulations.

Again, your article shows your belief that the main factors in where farms and businesses locate is how cheap the labor is and how few regulations there are, is wrong.

Melonie
12-15-2008, 04:56 AM
I find the bigger supermakrkets use in-season foods from nearby their local areas, while places like Walmart, Aldi, etc do import a lot regardless of the season. It's a scale factor for them

granted that there are a lot of variables, beginning with the fact that the USA Today article was nearly 2 years old. And yes obviously the US supermarket chains do use far more domestically grown fruits and vegetables than the WalMarts and Aldis. However this actually comes right back to the central question ... how many American will continue to pay (or will be able to afford to pay) a premium price for US grown fruits and vegetables ? It is that premium price that supports the continued profitability of higher production cost US growers. In point of fact, many commercial US growers 'gave up the ship' in 2008 ... particularly tomato growers. In further point of fact, many US growers are going to be forced to 'give up the ship' in 2009 as their borrowing costs to fertilize, seed, and pesticide have risen tremendously while the world market price of their crop has declined.

threlayer
12-15-2008, 10:31 AM
With the great price decline in petroleum and related products, we have market inefficiencies at play here. Further the tomato scare thing was fake and unfortunate. Eventually things may stabilize and itt may take a growing season or more. In the meantime, it's farm artibrage.

Melonie
12-15-2008, 12:19 PM
speak of the devil, a new news story about California farms affected by new gov't regulations and the limited availability of credit to finance next year's crop ...



(snip)"MENDOTA, Calif. - Idled farm workers are searching for food in the nation's most prolific agricultural region, where a double blow of drought and a court-ordered cutback of water supplies has caused hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

This bedraggled town is struggling with an unemployment rate that city officials say is 40 percent and rising. This month, 600 farm families depleted the cupboards of the local food bank, which turned away families — more than 100 of them — for the first time."(snip)

(snip)""But this can be fixed like that," he said, snapping his fingers. "All they have to do is get the water here."

California's population has ballooned from 10 million to more than 36 million since water began flowing through the state's network of canals in middle of last century, delivering water from the wet north to the arid south.

After years of discounting the environmental consequences, court orders seeking to protect threatened fish such as the Delta smelt have slowed the flows even as prolonged drought left some reservoirs at just 12 percent of capacity."(snip)

(snip)"Now farmers are relying on dwindling groundwater supplies and keeping their fingers crossed for 10 percent of their water allotments. Last week a coalition of farmers and urban water filed a lawsuit claiming that state officials overstepped their authority by approving another round of potential cuts.

The valley produces 80 percent of the world's almonds. But grower Shawn Coburn has held off spending $350,000 to fertilize his 1,000 acres this month because he fears he will not have enough water for a 2009 crop.

"If you like foreign oil, you're going to love foreign food," he scoffed."(snip)

threlayer
12-15-2008, 10:26 PM
If industry isn't responsible for protecting the public from its own crooks, the populace is justified in having the government take a crack at it. We aren't just going to sit back and let business moguls' shortcuts poison, rob, and kill us. If we didn't have oversight, this country would be an unholy mess with HUGE number of the exploiters out there. You want less government, go live with the Lord of the Flies. Theirs failed, so they abandoned it to anarchy.

I have to suspect that anyone who wants the government to abandon its surveillance of business to in fact be an exploiter just waiting for the watchdog to go to sleep. In fact we need better watchdogs, not fewer of them. If they aren't good, let's train them better and get them working better for us. Getting rid of them just makes anarchy that much closer to all of us.

Miss_Luscious
12-16-2008, 12:08 AM
^^^
Agreed. It seems the ones screaming, "Leave us alone! Let us run our businesses however we want!" are the ones who are in the most prime postion to fuck people over most royally. And we are expected to trust them because this time they really really will do the right thing. Promise.

That's like letting the fox have free reign of the hen house just because he's says he's not going to harm those hens even though that's what he's always done. It doesn't make any sense.

NWoD
12-21-2008, 11:58 AM
If industry isn't responsible for protecting the public from its own crooks, the populace is justified in having the government take a crack at it. We aren't just going to sit back and let business moguls' shortcuts poison, rob, and kill us. If we didn't have oversight, this country would be an unholy mess with HUGE number of the exploiters out there. You want less government, go live with the Lord of the Flies. Theirs failed, so they abandoned it to anarchy.

I have to suspect that anyone who wants the government to abandon its surveillance of business to in fact be an exploiter just waiting for the watchdog to go to sleep. In fact we need better watchdogs, not fewer of them. If they aren't good, let's train them better and get them working better for us. Getting rid of them just makes anarchy that much closer to all of us.

Dicken's-era England springs to mind. Brutal exploitation and child-labor...

Although plenty of Third World sweatshops could easily fit that description as well...