What biased ridiculous spin. You could just as equally say:Originally Posted by GGT
Obama was the President who lost the AAA rating.
Obama made 'compromise' a dirty word.
Obama obstructed any deals.
Etc - It takes 2 to Tango.
What biased ridiculous spin. You could just as equally say:
Obama was the President who lost the AAA rating.
Obama made 'compromise' a dirty word.
Obama obstructed any deals.
Etc - It takes 2 to Tango.
I think you're taking liberty with history. The GOP straight up said their number #1 priority was to make the president single term and to obstruct any way possible. Romney was just quoted that the GOP made a mistake when they agreed to obama's budget deal, and when we lost our AAA rating, it was written in that decision it was because of the GOP's actions.
You might as well blame a rape victim for being the victim, because it takes 2 for it to be rape.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 09-12-2012 at 02:35 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
And Obama's people made it clear that they had no intention of negotiating with Republicans when they had the votes to force bills through.
Hope is the denial of reality
I wonder if you can sue some of these negative reviewers for libel. In theory, I mean.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Who's got responsibility for the budget? The President alone?I think you're taking liberty with history. The GOP straight up said their number #1 priority was to make the president single term and to obstruct any way possible. Romney was just quoted that the GOP made a mistake when they agreed to obama's budget deal, and when we lost out AAA rating, it was written in that decision it was because of the GOP's actions.
You might as well blame a rape victim for being the victim, because it takes 2 for it to be rape.
Because I thought Congress were held accountable. In which case for there to be a budgetary agreement it requires the CONSENT OF BOTH. To compare to rape because there wasn't an agreement is absurd. Nobody forced themselves on the other, quite the opposite. If Obama wants to reach a deal and Congress doesn't want to bend then Obama is capable of doing so. There is no budgetary duty for Congress to just rubber stamp whatever the President wants.
Whoa there....I was commenting on Lewk sounding like a page out of the GOP. I didn't put any spin in there. Facts: Senator McConnell- (R)Minority Leader stated outright their main goal was to oust Obama. House Republicans used the debt ceiling deadline as a political tool to push their budget agenda, without compromise, and obstruct the 'routine business' of paying gov't bills. They admitted it was a strategy, mostly by the Tea Party members. That congressional intransigence is the reason Moody's gave for our downgrade.
Whereas you sound like a page out of the DNC. Or MoveOn.
Republicans stated they wanted to oust a Democrat President, hold the presses! I'm sure the Democrats had no intent of ousting Bush did they? Maybe they didn't to be fair, it would explain Kerry.
Even conservative Republicans have condemned that kind of 'prioritizing'. Pay attention.
Scarborough???
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Their number one goal.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
To be elected and remove the opposition is generally most politicians number one goal. Dirty little secret I'm sure but turns out you have more shot of achieving your other goals if elected rather than your rivals. Funny that.
So they try to make life as difficult as possible for the citizens because that's the best way to not have a sitting president re-elected. A politician's occupation should go beyond campaigning in my opinion. They should try to get measures in policies they think will better their country. That's their job, that should be their #1 goal. Touch cookies if it turns out America happens to do great when the guy from the opposing party is at the wheel. How sweet a defeat would that be? The goal that should be #1 is make their country a better country.
But I'm ideological and patriotic like that. Some rather have the two Marketing Departments slug it out under the denomination of 'government'.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Politicians campaign. All politics, all the time. Once they're elected, they need to actually govern. That requires working with the opposing party to conduct our nation's business and get things done. Unfortunately, too many politicians start politicking and campaigning for the next election, the moment they're elected, and don't do anything else.
And when goals - and views - on the direction the country should take are diametrically opposed?
It should, but. . . often doesn't. And let's not forget that we're talking about a political party, one operating under the US political system. Our parties are primarily election tools, always have been. They have almost no role in governance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Their number one goal should be to do the people's work. To make the best of the situation their given and push for the best outcome for the citizenry. The problem is they intentionally are down voting anything they think would be helpful to society in order to make the president look bad. Instead of wanting to win because their the best candidates with useful ideas, they're just trying to sabotage the POTUS at the expense of the American people. Their stunt with the debt ceiling was literally insane.
There was no stunt. The debt ceiling is a statutory limit on how much debt the government can get into. The sane response would be to not borrow more than that limit!
If POTUS wants a change in the law to lift the limit (rather than stop borrowing) then consent needs to be sought and beggars can't be choosers.
Anyway why did Obama let it reach the stage it did? Didn't he have years of one party control of Congress during which he forced through healthcare reform? Why didn't he either fix the budget then or raise the ceiling then? Instead he pratted around and left it to the last minute and tried to bully Congress instead.
And we should all be millionaires.
Hope is the denial of reality
The party and the Congress-critters are not synonymous. A congressman's number-one goal ought to be either constituency-service or governance *in reality it's fundraising for re-election, constituency work for re-election, and then whatever it is we actually elect them for as a tertiary objective* but a Party's goal ought to be getting its agenda implemented and as a practical matter that actually makes its primary objective getting its members into office and the Opposition's members out of office. I repeat, a political party in the US system is and always has been primarily about getting people elected, it's not about what you call "the people's work" i.e. governance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The monies had already been 'borrowed' or used in previous budgets, congress had to approve the higher ceiling in order to pay the bills for services already rendered, and included costs of rolling-over previous debt....as part of our creditworthiness. The sane thing would be to combine/coordinate budgets and servicing debt, and adjust the congressional calendar to work that way. Instead of continuing resolutions, or gridlock during presidential campaigns.
Because POTUS isn't King or Dictator. Presidents can't single-handedly "fix the budget" any more than they can "fix unemployment" or "make gas cost $2.50/gallon"....If POTUS wants a change in the law to lift the limit (rather than stop borrowing) then consent needs to be sought and beggars can't be choosers.
Anyway why did Obama let it reach the stage it did? Didn't he have years of one party control of Congress during which he forced through healthcare reform? Why didn't he either fix the budget then or raise the ceiling then? Instead he pratted around and left it to the last minute and tried to bully Congress instead.
Again Obama and the Democrats had complete Congressional control just months before this blew up, but couldn't be arsed to deal with it. The GOP won control of Congress (with a fresher mandate than Obama) and you're upset that they then try and implement what they were elected to do?
But Obama had 2 years were his party controlled Congress. He could have done it if he (and the Democrats in Congress) had forced through their decisions like they did on Obamacare. Truth is Obama didn't want to fix the black hole in the budget, instead he wanted to make it worse - and did.Because POTUS isn't King or Dictator. Presidents can't single-handedly "fix the budget" any more than they can "fix unemployment" or "make gas cost $2.50/gallon"....
I'd love to see this weird logic played back in reverse. Differing tax rates (progressive taxation) is illegal and we should have flat taxes because of the equal protection clause. Sure you'd agree with that OG?
For starters it is unlikely that the SC would view "rich" as a "suspect class" and more likely that progressive taxation would be all right provided there is a rational basis for it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
All animals are equal but some are more equal than others?
So this law is OK if there's a rational basis for it?and more likely that progressive taxation would be all right provided there is a rational basis for it.
One might argue that the truly rich are already "more equal" than others, so I'm not sure what you're getting at apart from reminding us you've read Animal Farm. More to the point, I took your post at face value ie. as being about constitutionality rather than about broader controversies.
Many laws are deemed to be okay with the constitution provided that there is a rational basis for them and provided they don't directly violate the constitution. You mentioned the "equal protection clause" so I assumed you were specifically interested in legal--esp. constitutional--perspectives rather than eg. moral/ethical ones. I may be wrong but in that case no doubt Fuzzy will be along to clarifySo this law is OK if there's a rational basis for it?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The reason I brought up Equal Protection as that's the clause (as well as Free Assembly) that the judge used to strike down the law. As for the differing tax rates (as my counter-example) being about the "truly rich" - that's not really the case. Income Tax has very little in common with wealth. Someone who has nothing but earns a significant sum in one year pays more tax than someone who has a lot, lot more but earns a smaller amount that year.
I don't know how the US system works but in the UK if you have a 2-income family both on £34k per annum (£68k family income) then they're taxed at 20%, but if you've got say a stay-at-home mum and a father earning £35k (£35k family income) they're taxed at 40% tax. Are you saying that the £35k family are "truly rich" whereas the £68k family are poor?
So then in this case Wisconsin's government (and the voters who have already re-elected the Governor in a recall vote) need a rational basis for the law? I'm sure they have one.Many laws are deemed to be okay with the constitution provided that there is a rational basis for them and provided they don't directly violate the constitution. You mentioned the "equal protection clause" so I assumed you were specifically interested in legal--esp. constitutional--perspectives rather than eg. moral/ethical ones. I may be wrong but in that case no doubt Fuzzy will be along to clarify
1. Then maybe the struck law will soon be unstruck, or maybe it won't. The "equal protection" argument may not hold up to scrutiny. The other one might:
2. I get what you're saying about household income, but do you recognise that there may be legitimate social reasons for taxing earners in a dual income household separately rather than jointly?It is undisputed that there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining. Similarly, there is no constitutional right to a government-subsidized housing program. Yet the courts have held that once the government elected to offer subsidized housing it could not condition eligibility for it upon surrender or restriction of constitutional right unless that surrender or restriction was necessary to prevent a substantial evil that would threaten the operation of the program. In the same way, when the government elects to permit collective bargaining it may not make the surrender or restriction of a constitutional right a condition of that privilege.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Also congratulations on finding a household where both earners--usually one man and one woman--have the same income
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I suspect it may be more common than you think. It is not unusual for two people who work the same job to meet through work, fall in love and become a family. Say two teachers for example? Either way though even if not identical wages any full time two-income pair above minimum wage would typically earn more than the 40% threshold for one income.Also congratulations on finding a household where both earners--usually one man and one woman--have the same income
I met my fiancée through work, though she now works for a different company. I won't disclose my or her income but I can say that individually we're both below the 40% threshold but combined we'd be above it. So say if she was to get pregnant and leave work then I'd have to earn extra much more than she earns on top of my own due to the tax rates for us not to be on a lower income. I'm not entirely convinced I see the social advantage of that.
The social advantage of taxing earners separately rather than jointly is that joint taxation tends to create disincentives for female labour participation in any country that has chosen--for whatever reason--to use a progressive tax system. That sucks even more because you risk having more women be financially dependent on their husbands, which might not be a problem if everything is great but may become a problem when things start to suck. Two social advantages are in other words that you'll have more women who work and you'll have just a little bit more gender equality.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
