At What Point Does This Become a Constitutional Crisis?

[Mithrandir]

As far as I'm concerned all the central planners, bureaucrats, investment bankers, union heads, lawyers, crooked CEOS and the rest of the command/control segment of our society can all jump in the nearest volcano. For countless decades, they have achieved complete dominance over our society with their precious system and proceeded to run it into the ground, thanks to pride, gluttony and megalomania. On those grounds alone, not only should they be universally scorned and disregarded but they'll be fortunate to be even breathing the day after, when you factor in the aggregate human suffering they will be ultimately responsibly for. Hopefully, what is coming is an age of decentralization in which men can return to the human race as opposed to this sick, twisted path towards high tech bondage. So you can say I admire the Marxist method but not necessarily the goals.

Amen!

[PaleoMan]

This guy has to run for senate in S.C. I'd love to see him on an episode of Politically Incorrect. Maher's head would spin.

[PaleoMan]

the progressives need to listen to Ratigan. He seems to be the only pundit to understand the collective danger we face as a nation. America is essentially being stripmined to this zero sum global currency solution:

[GwynnInTheHall]

the progressives need to listen to Ratigan. He seems to be the only pundit to understand the collective danger we face as a nation. America is essentially being stripmined to this zero sum global currency solution:

I love it.

it's pretty much where i stand--outside of a handful of congresspeople, the whole lot of em suck.

[PaleoMan]

Pretty scary to ponder. So according to his deduction, 32% of the voting electorate are literally a SPECIAL INTEREST and will vote accordingly to protect these perks for either them-self or their spouse. It's probably in the low-mid 20s though since voter participation cannot be 100%, but there has been studies in the past which show that government workers have exhibited higher percentage of voter participation that your average citizen.

[onejayhawk]

Pretty scary to ponder. So according to his deduction, 32% of the voting electorate are literally a SPECIAL INTEREST and will vote accordingly to protect these perks for either them-self or their spouse. It's probably in the low-mid 20s though since voter participation cannot be 100%, but there has been studies in the past which show that government workers have exhibited higher percentage of voter participation that your average citizen.

That number is low. Very low. If you tie it to a vote, like he does, and restrict it to money, you can justify it. In my experience, most people have a make or break issue, over which they will discard a candidate.

J

[Mithrandir]

the progressives need to listen to Ratigan. He seems to be the only pundit to understand the collective danger we face as a nation. America is essentially being stripmined to this zero sum global currency solution:

This dude for president!!! he gets it!!

[Judge Jude]

Provocative:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/18/how-washington-is-destroying-the-economy/

"The root of our current problem is that there are no grownups in positions of serious power in Washington. I've never felt this way before -- and I've written business stories for more than 40 years, and about national finances for more than 20...... I spent July on family leave, not writing columns, and watching with increasing horror as market-illiterate know-nothings, abetted by the craven leaders of the Republican Party (from which I'm about to resign) and the unspeakable ineptness of Obama and his minions, brought our country to within an inch of defaulting on its debts."

[onejayhawk]

As rants go, it was rational.

It was still a rant.

J

[Lucky]

Provocative:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/18/how-washington-is-destroying-the-economy/

"The root of our current problem is that there are no grownups in positions of serious power in Washington. I've never felt this way before -- and I've written business stories for more than 40 years, and about national finances for more than 20...... I spent July on family leave, not writing columns, and watching with increasing horror as market-illiterate know-nothings, abetted by the craven leaders of the Republican Party (from which I'm about to resign) and the unspeakable ineptness of Obama and his minions, brought our country to within an inch of defaulting on its debts."

I thought this was a really challenging article, critical of both sides.

This won't go over well here, but it seems to me that the Tea Party is intransigent because they believe they are 100% right on every issue, which is very seldom the case. On the other side, Obama continues his futile efforts to reach out to the Republican leadership, which has gotten him pretty much zero in two plus years. He needs to settle upon a set of positions and stick to his guns. Maybe then, both sides will realize they have to compromise a little.

It's just irresponsibility and craven cowardice for every Republican candidate to say they wouldn't accept a debt reduction plan with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue enhancements. Will anyone openly disagree with this? Will anyone here say that a 10/1 deficit reduction plan is not a brilliant beginning to finding our way out of the wilderness?

I've asked several times before, and nobody here will claim membership in the Tea Party. Will any Tea Party sympathizers denounce their absolute one-sided plan for deficit reduction? Anyone?

[chancellor]

It's just irresponsibility and craven cowardice for every Republican candidate to say they wouldn't accept a debt reduction plan with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue enhancements. Will anyone openly disagree with this? Will anyone here say that a 10/1 deficit reduction plan is not a brilliant beginning to finding our way out of the wilderness?

I will! I will! Hey, I'm all in favor of bringing back Clinton era tax rates - right after both houses of Congress and our president commit to $1 trillion in budget cuts per year. A 10/1 deficit reduction plan - or any plan that does not cut at least a trillion per year out of the budget - borders on useless.

I've asked several times before, and nobody here will claim membership in the Tea Party. Will any Tea Party sympathizers denounce their absolute one-sided plan for deficit reduction? Anyone?

No, because if they don't take a stand, no one will. It's patently evident, and history fully supports, that present party leadership of either party has little to no fiscal discipline. Even while staring default in the face, our politicians reduced our deficit by between 1/7th and 1/8th per year, depending on whose numbers you want to believe.

Heck, even some Democrats are beginning to get it. I can't remember the person's name, but one astutely noted that we can cut an additional $4 trillion in the next ten years with "no heavy lifting". If the Dems would actually show some leadership, do some "heavy lifting" and double that number, they'd easily have the political capital to get the Bush tax cuts eliminated. But it's obvious they don't have that leadership in the Senate or the Presidency.

So far, the only fiscal leadership discipline has come from the Tea Party, and frankly, what they allowed to pass is weak sauce at best.

[senorsheep]

Will anyone here say that a 10/1 deficit reduction plan is not a brilliant beginning to finding our way out of the wilderness?

Sure, it's brilliant. Is someone on the Dem side proposing 10/1?

Carping about hypothetical resistance to phantom proposals that have never been made and will never be made makes for clever gamesmanship, but it's all empty bluster until you actually put some chips at risk. If 10/1 was seriously put on the table, I'll bet The Repub's would take it. I'll also bet that The Dems will never seriously put 10/1 on the table.

[cardboardbox]

I'll also bet that The Dems will never seriously put 10/1 on the table.

oh the dems would offer that but it would be 10 in taxes, 1 in cuts.

[senorsheep]

oh the dems would offer that but it would be 10 in taxes, 1 in cuts.

Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado), a trust fund liberal who's typically about as Left as Left can be, has been offering up some very fair and sensible ideas for cutting costs, increasing revenues via tax reform, and getting people back to work. I wish there were more voices like his driving the national debate.

[cardboardbox]

A quick google search finds this on Udall: http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=8

We all know that government doesn't create jobs - the private sector does.

wait, what? You sure you put the right letter after his name?