PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus package



Matt McKenzie
02-03-2009, 08:12 AM
Here are some examples of items in the package:

350 million to develop and maintain a "broadband inventory map" at the Department of Commerce
$1.375 billion for "Rural Water and Waste Disposal"
$1 billion for the 2010 Census
$150 million for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
$50 million in aid to combat Internet Crimes Against Children
$1.4 billion for water projects for Indian tribes
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
$2.1 billion on energy efficiency in government buildings
$600 million to buy high fuel economy vehicles for the federal government
$240 million for "Alteration of Bridges"
$55 million for Historic Preservation in Park System
$150 million for facilities at the Smithsonian
$100 million in Aging nutrition services
$400 million for screening and prevention of STD's, including HIV
$1.5 billion for "Homelessness Prevention Fund"

Your tax dollars at work.

shootncast
02-03-2009, 09:51 AM
awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brandoned
02-03-2009, 10:04 AM
It's going to be a long 4 years........or even worse 8!

Eric Johnson
02-03-2009, 11:30 AM
The real problem with this bill is that there are indeed some worthwhile items that will stimulate the economy. For example, the $250 billion for energy efficiency in government buildings. I'm not saying the amount is right. I'm saying that the projects could be labor intensive and could yield a savings in the long run.

Eric

K G
02-03-2009, 11:37 AM
Here's the whole list, Matt....

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35664

Sad but true (and fortunately, not final) regards,

kg

Franco
02-03-2009, 02:04 PM
The Bill has been greatly modified from what they tried to cram down our throats last week. Pelosi and a Congressman from Wisconsin have been exposed for loading the bill with pork and for also trying to payback Labor Unions for their support in the last election.

Public support is now only at 34% according to the latest Gallup for this stupid bill. Even if the Republicans get somewhat of a compromise, WE DON'T need a Stimulus Bill/package. We don't need ANY MONEY being spent, we need tax cuts for tax payers and businesses!

Uncle Bill
02-03-2009, 03:33 PM
The extremely worrisome facet of the overall package is what their intentions are for the illegal immigrants. It's incredibly scary. Get Lou Dobbs report. It's worth looking up. It WILL make you call your senator.

UB

cotts135
02-04-2009, 06:27 AM
The extremely worrisome facet of the overall package is what their intentions are for the illegal immigrants. It's incredibly scary. Get Lou Dobbs report. It's worth looking up. It WILL make you call your senator.

UB

I have tried finding this Lou Dobbs report that you quote. Can you be more specific?

Patrick Johndrow
02-04-2009, 06:55 AM
And we thought ethanol was the biggest scam to be perpetrated on the American people. Ok…where are all the Obama loving liberals we had on here before the election?

I want an apology or at least I am going to tell you I TOLD YOU SO!



Hope this is the beginning of the end for liberals in this country regards.

Raymond Little
02-04-2009, 07:10 AM
"Hope this is the beginning of the end for liberals in this country regards."

Patrick, they will never really go away since all of our universities and
primary education systems are loaded with the pointy-headed sandal
wearing "FRUITLOOPS". Reagan beat them back, but Bush the elder
let them come back in 1991 with his tax increase. Liberals are similar
to Johnson Grass, you have got to keep treating them with "RoundUp"
on a regular basis to keep them in check. Our problem is that we let
up on them when we have them by the balls. "Take no Prisoners" is a
motto I wish my party would subscribe to.


Bitter Clinger Regards

Pete
02-04-2009, 09:22 AM
I heard on a radio show that most of the money paid out is going for payback for election support. They ran down the list and most were conected with the obama campaign one way or the other.
I would say there is trueth to that because the money was supposed to help the mortgage crisis and much was supposed to be applied to payroll loans.

We have once again put the fox in charge of the hen house.
Its all quite easy to fix,,,but only a handful of people would be able to stomach it.

Pete

backpasture
02-04-2009, 09:57 AM
I heard on a radio show....


So, you know it has to be true!



Its all quite easy to fix,,,but only a handful of people would be able to stomach it.


Please tell us about your 'easy' fix, Pete.

kb27_99
02-04-2009, 10:18 AM
Please tell us about your 'easy' fix, Pete.


Revolution!

The good hard working, god fearing Americans of this great country needs to get rid of the corrupt government we have been having for so long (Both republican and Democrat) and start from scratch with common people. Then and only then will things get better.


JMO,

Kevin

YardleyLabs
02-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Revolution!

The good hard working, god fearing Americans of this great country needs to get rid of the corrupt government we have been having for so long (Both republican and Democrat) and start from scratch with common people. Then and only then will things get better.


JMO,

Kevin
Were you figuring on having a democracy or will we just leave it up to the "good hard working, god fearing Americans" to tell the rest of us what's best?

kb27_99
02-04-2009, 11:53 AM
Jeff,

Remind me, whats a democracy? Its been quite some time since we have had that in this country. Its only going to get worse because people like you are to blind to see what you put in power.


Cheers,


Kevin

Franco
02-04-2009, 12:48 PM
Revolution!

The good hard working, god fearing Americans of this great country needs to get rid of the corrupt government we have been having for so long (Both republican and Democrat) and start from scratch with common people. Then and only then will things get better.


JMO,

Kevin

How about we leave the God fearing out(seperation of church from state is a very good thing) and just require voters to pass a Civics Test and be a quailfied property owner in order to have the privlidge to vote? I'm all for starting over as I don't think we can rehabilitate those already in congress.

kb27_99
02-04-2009, 12:52 PM
How about we leave the God fearing out(seperation of church from state is a very good thing) and just require voters to pass a Civics Test and be a quailfied property owner in order to have the privlidge to vote? I'm all for starting over as I don't think we can rehabilitate those already in congress.


And speak fluent English as well.


Kevin

backpasture
02-04-2009, 12:53 PM
How about we leave the God fearing out(seperation of church from state is a very good thing) and just require voters to pass a Civics Test and be a quailfied property owner in order to have the privlidge to vote?

How about a poll tax, too? :rolleyes:

backpasture
02-04-2009, 12:57 PM
Jeff,

Remind me, whats a democracy? Its been quite some time since we have had that in this country. Its only going to get worse because people like you are to blind to see what you put in power.



Translation: "If my side doesn't win, then it doesn't count as 'Democracy'."

backpasture
02-04-2009, 01:09 PM
And speak fluent English as well.


And be a Christian? And be a Republican? What other criteria do you have for 'real Americans'? :rolleyes:

For the record, the 'good hard working, god fearing Americans of this great country' get a chance to ' get rid of the corrupt government we have been having for so long' every 2,4 and 6 years. The fact of the matter is that most people actually like their own representatives, but don't like those who represent other folks. Welcome to Democracy -- it means not always getting your way.

(As for the 'fluent English' part, you flunked that one at 'we have been having'. No vote for you!)

I'm still interested what Pete's 'easy' fix is. I have a feeling it is decidedly un-democratic.

kb27_99
02-04-2009, 01:12 PM
Translation: "If my side doesn't win, then it doesn't count as 'Democracy'."


I donít take sides; I vote for whom I think will do this country more good. Unfortunately this passed election it was the lesser of two evils. But I think more of you will figure out that Barack Hussein Obama isn't all peaches and cream as time goes on.



Kevin

Franco
02-04-2009, 01:37 PM
Translation: "If my side doesn't win, then it doesn't count as 'Democracy'."

What you haven't realized yet, is that we all lost with the outcome of this last election. Just look at your party's Stimulus bill. It is a catastrophy waiting to happen. I guess the change is that they can make it worse than it is.

backpasture
02-04-2009, 02:01 PM
What you haven't realized yet, is that we all lost with the outcome of this last election. Just look at your party's Stimulus bill. It is a catastrophy waiting to happen. I guess the change is that they can make it worse than it is.

Well, I don't have a party, so I'm not taking credit for the bill. As with the House Republicans, I have some issues with some of the line items in the stimulus. But I (and pretty much any reputable economist to the left of the Cato Institute) believe a stimulus is needed to get us out of this mess.

So, it's not that I fail to realize something yet -- it's that I disagree you.

I understand that you and may Republican officials think that the same 'hands off' approach that got us into this mess will get us out. That is counterintuitive, though.

I suspect that more than a few Republicans will be voting on the final bill, once they feel they have done an adequate amount of grandstanding. We will know soon enough.

badbullgator
02-04-2009, 02:23 PM
I donít take sides; I vote for whom I think will do this country more good. Unfortunately this passed election it was the lesser of two evils. But I think more of you will figure out that Barack Hussein Obama isn't all peaches and cream as time goes on.



Kevin

Peaches and cream.....I thought it was oreos and milk....

kb27_99
02-04-2009, 02:36 PM
Well, I don't have a party, so I'm not taking credit for the bill. As with the House Republicans, I have some issues with some of the line items in the stimulus. But I (and pretty much any reputable economist to the left of the Cato Institute) believe a stimulus is needed to get us out of this mess.

So, it's not that I fail to realize something yet -- it's that I disagree you.

I understand that you and may Republican officials think that the same 'hands off' approach that got us into this mess will get us out. That is counterintuitive, though.

I suspect that more than a few Republicans will be voting on the final bill, once they feel they have done an adequate amount of grandstanding. We will know soon enough.

Youíre kidding right? You were critiquing my English. LOL



Cheers,

Kevin

backpasture
02-04-2009, 02:44 PM
Youíre kidding right? You were critiquing my English. LOL



Cheers,

Kevin

That, and your non-sequiturs.

Franco
02-04-2009, 02:50 PM
Well, I don't have a party, so I'm not taking credit for the bill. As with the House Republicans, I have some issues with some of the line items in the stimulus. But I (and pretty much any reputable economist to the left of the Cato Institute) believe a stimulus is needed to get us out of this mess.

So, it's not that I fail to realize something yet -- it's that I disagree you.

I understand that you and may Republican officials think that the same 'hands off' approach that got us into this mess will get us out. That is counterintuitive, though.

I suspect that more than a few Republicans will be voting on the final bill, once they feel they have done an adequate amount of grandstanding. We will know soon enough.

First, lets call it what it really is, payback. Pelosi and other Dems authored the origianal bill to payback organized labor for thier support. There is very little job stimulus in a bill that BHO obviously never read. Second, in regards to the hands off by Republicans comment. The problems didn't just start over the last 8 years. Many have been predicting a burst of the financial bubble for many years. The timing was just poor for the republicans.Third, anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans. You know, the amendments that have a chance of actually stimulating the econony.Fouth, I don't think the eonomy is as bad as the press makes it out to be. The media used it during the election to help defeat the Republicans. With the election over, they need something to yap about, so they all jumped on the economy. With all the coverage, they have scared people to death about spending money. Finally, no real solutions are on the table for the real problems. The bill is nothing more than huge spending bill.I was hoping it could never get worse than another LBJ. Your current President (I didn't vote for him and don't claim him to be mine), could be much worse than LBJ with taking the entitlement mentallity to new highs!

backpasture
02-04-2009, 03:06 PM
First, lets call it what it really is, payback. Pelosi and other Dems authored the origianal bill to payback organized labor for thier support. There is very little job stimulus in a bill that BHO obviously never read. Second, in regards to the hands off by Republicans comment. The problems didn't just start over the last 8 years. Many have been predicting a burst of the financial bubble for many years. The timing was just poor for the republicans.Third, anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans. You know, the amendments that have a chance of actually stimulating the econony.Fouth, I don't think the eonomy is as bad as the press makes it out to be. The media used it during the election to help defeat the Republicans. With the election over, they need something to yap about, so they all jumped on the economy. With all the coverage, they have scared people to death about spending money. Finally, no real solutions are on the table for the real problems. The bill is nothing more than huge spending bill.I was hoping it could never get worse than another LBJ. Your current President (I didn't vote for him and don't claim him to be mine), could be much worse than LBJ with taking the entitlement mentallity to new highs!

Thanks for the Cliff Notes version of the talk radio Talking Points. "Anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans," is my favorite part of this WHARRGARBL. .

I will agree with you that the problems didn't start over the last 8 years. Let's give credit where it's due --- to the 'Reagan Revolution'.

Raymond Little
02-04-2009, 03:36 PM
Carter: Interest rate, 21%. Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%. The so-called ďMisery Index,Ē which Carter used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election.

Reaganís last year: Interest rate, 9%. Inflation, 4.1%. Unemployment, 5.5%.

George W. Bush: Interest rate, 8% down to almost 0%. Inflation, 2.6%. Unemployment, 4.5%.

Pass the Bong Backpastur you have had it too long.

Bitter Clinger Regards

YardleyLabs
02-04-2009, 03:37 PM
Thanks for the Cliff Notes version of the talk radio Talking Points. "Anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans," is my favorite part of this WHARRGARBL. .

I will agree with you that the problems didn't start over the last 8 years. Let's give credit where it's due --- to the 'Reagan Revolution'.

That may be the most accurate comment made.

As popular as the changes were, I believe that the "Reagan Revolution" did more to damage the long term soundness of our economy in general and our financial services industry in particular than anything since the deregulation under Harding. Massive profiteering in the S&L industry was followed by total collapse at the taxpayers' expense. Massive profiteering through the liquidation of pensions assets to bolster current profits and bonuses is directly linked to the unfunded pension liabilities we see today that are being bailed out by taxpayers. The deification of the trickle down economics and supply side mantras is directly linked to the most massive concentration of wealth in our history, runaway speculation with the assets of our largest companies, and a culture of greed.

Our lunch is being eaten by countries that have kept their sights on the long term value of their businesses (a lesson learned in Japan only after their own collapse) while we have lost control of our strategic business assets to gain short term labor cost advantages.

How's that for a lefty rant and thread hijack?;)

cotts135
02-04-2009, 03:51 PM
First, lets call it what it really is, payback. Pelosi and other Dems authored the origianal bill to payback organized labor for thier support. There is very little job stimulus in a bill that BHO obviously never read. Second, in regards to the hands off by Republicans comment. The problems didn't just start over the last 8 years. Many have been predicting a burst of the financial bubble for many years. The timing was just poor for the republicans.Third, anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans. You know, the amendments that have a chance of actually stimulating the econony.Fouth, I don't think the eonomy is as bad as the press makes it out to be. The media used it during the election to help defeat the Republicans. With the election over, they need something to yap about, so they all jumped on the economy. With all the coverage, they have scared people to death about spending money. Finally, no real solutions are on the table for the real problems. The bill is nothing more than huge spending bill.I was hoping it could never get worse than another LBJ. Your current President (I didn't vote for him and don't claim him to be mine), could be much worse than LBJ with taking the entitlement mentallity to new highs!

I mean c'mon.............................are you kidding me. Sorry there, but really, you have to be part ostrich to believe that. I know.....................I know it's the media's fault. It always is when things are not what you want them to be. The other thing is if everyone knew that the financial bubble would burst............ then why didn't the Bush administration address the problem.
Alot but not all of the problems we face today was because of policies enacted by the Bush administration. He had plenty of help with Democrats supporting these bills.
It's time we moved on from this and figure a way to fix this problem. I think Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in the house should be ashamed of themselves for obviously putting forth a bill that was deeply flawed. I think Democracy served us well here because the Republicans at least yelled loudly enough that we are not going to be stuck with the original draft. In the end I think this bill will be better for it. Let's hope so.

backpasture
02-04-2009, 03:52 PM
George W. Bush: Interest rate, 8% down to almost 0%. Inflation, 2.6%. Unemployment, 4.5%.


You're touting the the economy's performance under Bush??? Seriously?

You're giving credit to Bush for bringing the Interest rate to almost 0%, as if that is a GOOD thing??? Do you have any idea why Interest rates are as low as they are? (Hint: It's not because the economy is doing well.)

Don't think I need to pass the bong. It looks like you've already been hitting it pretty hard.

backpasture
02-04-2009, 03:57 PM
I think Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in the house should be ashamed of themselves for obviously putting forth a bill that was deeply flawed. I think Democracy served us well here because the Republicans at least yelled loudly enough that we are not going to be stuck with the original draft. In the end I think this bill will be better for it. Let's hope so.

Spot on. This is the way the sausage is made, it's just that people aren't usually paying attention to the process.

Julie R.
02-04-2009, 05:25 PM
Kelder sent me this, but I think it would be a nice start toward funding the stimulus package. And no I did not go to all the fact checker sites, it's close enough for me!

"The Proposal"
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary ofopportunity:
$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does thesetypes of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only
ONE term.

M Remington
02-04-2009, 06:33 PM
So which of these are bad (other than a Democratic president initiated them) and why?

I would also like to know opinions on Obama's limiting executive pay when a company is bailed out.

M Remington
02-04-2009, 06:36 PM
Julie, your post doesn't work. Since "all politics is local," we need representatives who know the issues of our districts. Assigning representatives to larger districts would amount to a bunch of mini-senators.

JDogger
02-04-2009, 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by backpasture http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=395723#post395723)
Thanks for the Cliff Notes version of the talk radio Talking Points. "Anything good in the bill was put in there by the Republicans," is my favorite part of this WHARRGARBL. .

I will agree with you that the problems didn't start over the last 8 years. Let's give credit where it's due --- to the 'Reagan Revolution'.



That may be the most accurate comment made.

As popular as the changes were, I believe that the "Reagan Revolution" did more to damage the long term soundness of our economy in general and our financial services industry in particular than anything since the deregulation under Harding. Massive profiteering in the S&L industry was followed by total collapse at the taxpayers' expense. Massive profiteering through the liquidation of pensions assets to bolster current profits and bonuses is directly linked to the unfunded pension liabilities we see today that are being bailed out by taxpayers. The deification of the trickle down economics and supply side mantras is directly linked to the most massive concentration of wealth in our history, runaway speculation with the assets of our largest companies, and a culture of greed.

Our lunch is being eaten by countries that have kept their sights on the long term value of their businesses (a lesson learned in Japan only after their own collapse) while we have lost control of our strategic business assets to gain short term labor cost advantages.

How's that for a lefty rant and thread hijack?;)

Lets not forget Nixon's 'opening of China'. That served us well didn't it?

JD

YardleyLabs
02-04-2009, 07:01 PM
Quote:

Lets not forget Nixon's 'opening of China'. That served us well didn't it?

JD

I actually thought it was the best thing he ever did as President.

Patrick Johndrow
02-04-2009, 07:14 PM
"Hope this is the beginning of the end for liberals in this country regards."

Patrick, they will never really go away since all of our universities and
primary education systems are loaded with the pointy-headed sandal
wearing "FRUITLOOPS". Reagan beat them back, but Bush the elder
let them come back in 1991 with his tax increase. Liberals are similar
to Johnson Grass, you have got to keep treating them with "RoundUp"
on a regular basis to keep them in check. Our problem is that we let
up on them when we have them by the balls. "Take no Prisoners" is a
motto I wish my party would subscribe to.


Bitter Clinger Regards


We can always hope they go away cant we? :)

Art Geddes
02-04-2009, 08:31 PM
Much ado has been made in this thread in regards to us being a democracy. We are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic form of representation. A republic is a form of government based on law, in our case the Constitution of the United States of America being the supreme law of the land. What we need is for our representatives to fully realize the severity of they oath they take to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution, not attempt to change it.

Art

JDogger
02-05-2009, 12:39 AM
I actually thought it was the best thing he ever did as President.
I thought the best thing he did as President was to resign.

Raymond Little
02-05-2009, 09:50 AM
I thought that the "Constitution" was a "Living Document", atleast that is what
Obama said.
"Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress" Do you include Obama in this statement?

Art Geddes
02-05-2009, 05:47 PM
I think Obama's view of the Constitution is a major part of the problem. He sees the Constitution as a failure as it did not provide for economic equality. The Constitution is the cornerstone of a great building and needs to be firm and unchanging, that is the reason why so few amendments have been passed over the years. It is a difficult and time consuming process to change, thank you founding fathers. It is because of the Constitution that the minority in this county have protection and rights, and the opportunity to reach the highest, but it does not guarantee they will succeed. And this is the way it should be. The fact of Obama getting elected to the highest office, whether that is good or bad, is because our Constitution guarantees certain rights, always has. But it does not guarantee certain things the Democrat party has tried to convince the American people it does. There is no guarantee to a paid for education, it does not guarantee the right to an abortion, even under the guise of privacy, it does not guarantee the right of homosexual marriage. It does set limits on the intrusion of the government into the affairs of its citizens. And it does guarantee the right of its citizens to bear arms. and worship and free speech.

Art

YardleyLabs
02-05-2009, 09:24 PM
....
But it does not guarantee certain things the Democrat party has tried to convince the American people it does. There is no guarantee to a paid for education, it does not guarantee the right to an abortion, even under the guise of privacy, it does not guarantee the right of homosexual marriage. It does set limits on the intrusion of the government into the affairs of its citizens. And it does guarantee the right of its citizens to bear arms. and worship and free speech.

Art
The Constitution is silent on most issues related to our general welfare. That does not mean government cannot address those issues, just that they are not Constitutional rights or obligations.

1. Paid education: The constitution does not guarantee any education at all: paid or unpaid. If the government decides to provide a public education, it must be done in a manner that does not violate other terms of the Constitution.

2. Right to an abortion: The Constitution doesn't guarantee either the right to have children or the right not to have children. Theoretically, a law could be passed that outlawed child birth altogether and the Constitution would be unaffected. However, the Supreme Court has historically decided that there is an inherent right to privacy and that government cannot interfere in certain areas without substantial cause. That was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision and for the overturning of sodomy laws. Certain justices believe that there is no inherent right of privacy. If Roe v Wade is overturned it will be for that reason. In that case, all bets are off when it comes to other rights of privacy.

3. Homosexual marriage: The Constitution does not guarantee any right of marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual. In fact, marriage was not generally a matter of civil law at all when the Constitution was written. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and simply focus on providing a legal framework for settling property disputes and custody issues arising out of the dissolution of personal partnerships. Since marriage law does this well, we could simply replace the word marriage in all laws with the word "civil union" and leave it at that.

4. Intrusion of government. The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy. It does protect against unreasonable search and seizure and contains the general "Liberty" clause. Those have been the basis for deciding that there is an implicit right of privacy. If Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia have their way, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the right of privacy will disappear with it.

5. Bear Arms: Actually the language of the Constitution is not as clear as the NRA would like us to believe and the most recent decision of the Court may become the basis for more and more limits on the types of weapons that may be owned by an individual.

6. Right to worship: The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." People tend to forget that the right to worship is only as broad as the insistance that the government not be party to the process.

7. Freedom of speech: The right to free speech and a free press are probably the most unambiguous rights spelled out in the Constitution and are the most frequently attacked. Personally, I believe that without those two rights, the rest are meaningless. If that means that purveyors of pornography can operate to their heart's content, so be it. The reality is that pornographers are not the ones who make their content the most popular destination on the internet.

K.Bullock
02-06-2009, 08:59 AM
The Constitution is silent on most issues related to our general welfare. That does not mean government cannot address those issues, just that they are not Constitutional rights or obligations.

1. Paid education: The constitution does not guarantee any education at all: paid or unpaid. If the government decides to provide a public education, it must be done in a manner that does not violate other terms of the Constitution.

2. Right to an abortion: The Constitution doesn't guarantee either the right to have children or the right not to have children. Theoretically, a law could be passed that outlawed child birth altogether and the Constitution would be unaffected. However, the Supreme Court has historically decided that there is an inherent right to privacy and that government cannot interfere in certain areas without substantial cause. That was the basis for the Roe v Wade decision and for the overturning of sodomy laws. Certain justices believe that there is no inherent right of privacy. If Roe v Wade is overturned it will be for that reason. In that case, all bets are off when it comes to other rights of privacy.

3. Homosexual marriage: The Constitution does not guarantee any right of marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual. In fact, marriage was not generally a matter of civil law at all when the Constitution was written. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether and simply focus on providing a legal framework for settling property disputes and custody issues arising out of the dissolution of personal partnerships. Since marriage law does this well, we could simply replace the word marriage in all laws with the word "civil union" and leave it at that.

4. Intrusion of government. The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy. It does protect against unreasonable search and seizure and contains the general "Liberty" clause. Those have been the basis for deciding that there is an implicit right of privacy. If Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia have their way, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the right of privacy will disappear with it.

5. Bear Arms: Actually the language of the Constitution is not as clear as the NRA would like us to believe and the most recent decision of the Court may become the basis for more and more limits on the types of weapons that may be owned by an individual.

6. Right to worship: The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." People tend to forget that the right to worship is only as broad as the insistance that the government not be party to the process.

7. Freedom of speech: The right to free speech and a free press are probably the most unambiguous rights spelled out in the Constitution and are the most frequently attacked. Personally, I believe that without those two rights, the rest are meaningless. If that means that purveyors of pornography can operate to their heart's content, so be it. The reality is that pornographers are not the ones who make their content the most popular destination on the internet.

Some people think some other people read the constitution through the lense of their own political agendas. An agenda that would be out of context at the time the constitution was written. ;)

Good stuff Jeff, although I take issue with a couple that you already know. Why would Scalia and others throw out the right to privacy with Roe v Wade? Why would they have to go that route to overturn it? Couldn't they just simply say it is best left up to the states and the court should not have meddled, or is there more involved?


I haven't followed the others much but, I don't see that fitting into Scalia's philosophy.

YardleyLabs
02-06-2009, 09:35 AM
Some people think some other people read the constitution through the lense of their own political agendas. An agenda that would be out of context at the time the constitution was written. ;)

Good stuff Jeff, although I take issue with a couple that you already know. Why would Scalia and others throw out the right to privacy with Roe v Wade? Why would they have to go that route to overturn it? Couldn't they just simply say it is best left up to the states and the court should not have meddled, or is there more involved?


I haven't followed the others much but, I don't see that fitting into Scalia's philosophy.

It is generally accepted that if the Constitution guarantees citizens a specific right then that right must be honored by each State and the Supreme Court must enforce that right. This is based on the 14th amendment. Roe v Wade decided that there was an implicit right to privacy and that abortion -- or reproduction more generally -- fell under that protection.

Scalia is on record that he does not believe that there is any such right to privacy and that, as far as he is concerned, the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion. For that reason it should be left to the States.

Roberts took similar positions in memos he wrote while working in the Reagan administration, stating "All of us, for example," he wrote, "may heartily endorse a 'right to privacy.' That does not, however, mean that courts should discern such an abstraction in the Constitution, arbitrarily elevate it over other constitutional rights and powers by attaching the label 'fundamental,' and then resort to it as, in the words of one of Justice Black's dissents, 'a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional.' "

It is more difficult to classify Thomas' position since he almost never writes opinions, never writes articles, and never asks questions. In his confirmation hearing he said he believed in a right of privacy but declined to comment of anything related to abortion. In prior lectures and discussions he was quoted as having said that there was no right to privacy and that in fact the Constitution should be interpreted to prohibit all abortion. In his hearings he stated that he no memory of those comments which were testified to by various parties.

The ground work for Roe v Wade rested in an earlier case (Griswold v. Connecticut) overturning a Connecticut law that restricted contraception even among married adults. That case was based on the right to privacy which was deemed to flow from several of the amendments but most specifically the 14th. The most common attack on Roe v Wade has been that the Constitution does not use the word privacy and that there is no such thing as an implicit right. Other than possibly from Thomas, there is no support among the justices for an interpretation of the Constitution that would grant civil rights to unborn children.

gmhr1
02-06-2009, 01:32 PM
I'm sick of hearing we need to create new jobs, lets just keep people in their current jobs and let them keep their home. Instead of creating new we could always give them back their old jobs!

Marvin S
02-06-2009, 03:10 PM
I'm sick of hearing we need to create new jobs, lets just keep people in their current jobs and let them keep their home. Instead of creating new we could always give them back their old jobs!

Which one would that be? The one where they were building houses for people with ghost income or the one where they accepted that someone had earnings so they could screw the taxpayers on the loan, or the one where they bundled all that garbage together & sold it as a good investment or the one where they rated the garbage so it could be sold or the one where they gave loans on unrealistic house values so people could spend on stuff they didn't really need?

Henry V
02-06-2009, 06:22 PM
Which one would that be? The one where they were building houses for people with ghost income or the one where they accepted that someone had earnings so they could screw the taxpayers on the loan, or the one where they bundled all that garbage together & sold it as a good investment or the one where they rated the garbage so it could be sold or the one where they gave loans on unrealistic house values so people could spend on stuff they didn't really need?
Exactly! What the hell was going on on wall street.

On another but related front, I hear this nation also has something like 64 square miles of vacant retail space right now. Enough to supply our needs for 10 years. Not only is the housing boom over, so is the building boom for retail space.

shootncast
02-07-2009, 08:46 AM
I may be wrong but I dont think He was pushing 1 for english.