Undoing The New Deal

Unsurprisingly, Randy Barnett touts Charles Lane's unconcern that the New Deal jurisprudence will be overturned. Lane writes:

What, then, led the [liberal] academics to misread this [ACA] case [sic]? In a sense, they resemble the conservative leaders of the bar at the dawn of the New Deal. President Franklin Roosevelt’s alphabet soup of federal programs ran counter to established doctrine denying the constitutionality of economic and social legislation, state or federal. Steeped in that tradition, many legal experts recoiled in horror at FDR’s plans.

Amid a Great Depression, and under tremendous pressure from a popular president and his huge congressional majority, however, this expert consensus gave way. The Supreme Court abandoned its laissez faire understanding of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (among other provisions) so as to permit New Deal programs.

Lane seems to believe our Constitutional history began during the Lochner Era. McCulloch v. Maryland? Never heard of it says Lane. Gibbons v. Ogden? What's that says Lane. But forget all that.

Lane (and Barnett) are happy to see the New Deal jurisprudence overturned. This is the conservative project. This is the Constitution in Exile movement. Janice Rogers Brown explained it clearly and forthrightly (PDF):

The Hettingas’ collision with the MREA—the latest iteration of the venerable AMAA—reveals an ugly truth: America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.

First the Supreme Court allowed state and local jurisdictions to regulate property, pursuant to their police powers, in the public interest, and to “adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 516 (1934). Then the Court relegated economic liberty to a lower echelon of constitutional protection than personal or political liberty, according restrictions on property rights only minimal review. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152–53 (1938). Finally, the Court abdicated its constitutional duty to protect economic rights completely, acknowledging that the only recourse for aggrieved property owners lies in the “democratic process.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979). “The Constitution,” the Court said, “presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.” Id.

[...] In Carolene Products (yet another case involving protectionist legislation), the court ratified minimalist review of economic regulations, holding that a rational basis for economic legislation would be presumed and more searching inquiry would be reserved for intrusions on political rights. 304 U.S. at 153 n.4. Thus the Supreme Court decided economic liberty was not a fundamental constitutional right, and decreed economic legislation must be upheld against an equal protection challenge “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for it. FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). See also Pac. States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176, 185–86 (1935); Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677, 684–85 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (en banc).

This standard is particularly troubling in light of the pessimistic view of human nature that animated the Framing of the Constitution—a worldview that the American polity and its political handmaidens have, unfortunately, shown to be largely justified. See James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, at 39, 42 (W. W. Norton & Co. 1987). [. . .] But the better view may be that the Constitution created the countermajoritarian difficulty in order to thwart more potent threats to the Republic: the political temptation to exploit the public appetite for other people’s money—either by buying consent with broad-based entitlements or selling subsidies, licensing restrictions, tariffs, or price fixing regimes to benefit narrow special interests.

[...] The judiciary justifies its reluctance to intervene by claiming incompetence—apparently, judges lack the acumen to recognize corruption, self-interest, or arbitrariness in the economic realm—or deferring to the majoritarian imperative. [...] The practical effect of rational basis review of economic regulation is the absence of any check on the group interests that all too often control the democratic process. It allows the legislature free rein to subjugate the common good and individual liberty to the electoral calculus of politicians, the whim of majorities, or the self-interest of factions. See Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty 260 (2004).

The hope of correction at the ballot box is purely illusory. [...] In an earlier century, H. L. Mencken offered a blunt assessment of that option: “[G]overnment is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” [...] Civil society, “once it grows addicted to redistribution, changes its character and comes to require the state to ‘feed its habit.’” Anthony De Jasay, The State 226 (1998). The difficulty of assessing net benefits and burdens makes the idea of public choice oxymoronic. See id. at 248. Rational basis review means property is at the mercy of the pillagers. The constitutional guarantee of [economic] liberty deserves more respect—a lot more.

This is Randy Barnett's project. This is the Federalist Society's project. This is the Republican Party's project.

Lane writes:

[T]he United States periodically redefines the role of the federal government in society, in a process that is both political and legal — and, sometimes, more revolutionary than evolutionary. In that sense, we do have a “living Constitution.”

Oh, so NOW we have a Living Constitution do we MR. Lane. NOW judicial activism is a-ok. Lane continues:

The post-New Deal consensus about the scope of federal power has broken down amid national, and global, concern over the welfare state’s cost and intrusiveness — a sea change of which the tea party is but one manifestation. Obamacare itself, which has consistently polled badly, fueled that movement.

Earth to Charles Lane, the Constitution in Exile movement began long before "Obamacare" was dreamed up by Republicans two decades ago.

But at least we have some honesty now - the goal is to undo the New Deal. Lane may be a-ok with that. Most of us are not.

Speaking for me only

< Welcome Back, Kim DotCom! | George Zimmerman: New Reports, New Injury Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    Not sure this is truly, and fully, Lane or Randy's goal. Rogers Brown is a different matter, but she is really an outlier, even for most of the Federalist crowd.  

    Irrespective of that, the thing that strikes me, and I have been having this conversation for two days, if not more, with Michael Cohen, on and off the nets, is that the view that a decision squashing the mandate will lead to necessary reversal of 75 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and return to Lochner (as JRB would, completely agreed, prefer) is simply not supported by the main briefing and oral argument of the ACA group of cases. To suggest that such a radical outcome would be underwritten by Tony Kennedy and, if to a lesser extent, John Roberts, seems nearly laughable to me.

    I truly hope I am not wrong though.

    Lane is stupid (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    but Barnett knows exactly what he wants. It is no coincidence that Rogers Brown cites Barnett's 2004 law review article.

    But that is the goal (none / 0) (#16)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    Really. No kidding. The goal is to pare back the incredible, unreasonable, illogical expansion of the commerce clause. Even liberals should be behind this. Kelo v New London? Really?
    Gonzales v Raich?
    Is that the government anyone wants?

    You have to keep in mind--when one imagines and invents extra-constitutional powers for the government, they do not go away. One day, the Bad Guys are in charge. You don't want them constrained?


    When the commerce clause... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:30:04 AM EST
    enables legal justification for such an obvious inalienable rights violation as the war on drugs, it's been stretched too damn far. You're right lobo.  

    But I think we all know putting a harness on the commerce clause ain't gonna lead to the liberation of all them prisoners of the domestic war, it ain't gonna lead to an end of rigged market crony capitalism...the bastards will find a way to keep all the dirty the commerce clause justifies, the tyranny of our brand of socialism will remain, and only the gravy of our brand of socialism will be eradicated.

    I got no love for the mandate, I say if the government is gonna make you buy something they at least gotta be the one selling it, not f*ckin' Oxford.  

    I don't know, I guess I'm saying we're screwed no matter what the decision is...if the mandate stays we're working for the insurance company, hoping they don't screw us if we need them, and who knows if we'll be forced to work for Goldman Sachs next...if the mandate goes, federal programs that actually do some good will be next, fuedal system here we come.  


    Not all mandates are the same, (none / 0) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    there are  "blonds, brunettes are redheads"  There are, as examples,  the mandate to pay your income taxes or go to jail (cf. Al Capone); there is the no shoes, no shirt, no service mandate (cf. Mom and Pop's convenience store) and there is the don't exceed the speed limit mandate (cf. Traffic cop, Traffic Court fines and/or points).  The ACA mandate seems to be more of a suggestion and expectation that sports a full head of gray--if you do not buy insurance you are subject to a penalty (fine/tax with some exemptions, such as financial exigency).  However, if you do not pay the penalty there is no penalty.   It is the kind of mandate that I can live with.--commerce, smommerce.

    I can live with that too... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    as long as there is no penalty for tellin' Uncle Sam to stick his fine up his arse;)

    And as long as it doesn't set a mandate precedent that leads to a law forcing us to gamble on retirement with Goldman Sachs (The Grand Central Station Three Card Monty Retirement Act), or a bank account mandate in an effort to go cashless society (The Bankster Leechery Expansion Act).

    Thats what makes this one unique...at least with mandated car insurance you have the option of not playing and taking the bus.


    Yes, we can take the bus (none / 0) (#181)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    if there is a bus, or if bus service is mandated.  And, we can forego the mandated health insurance as long as hospital emergency rooms are mandated to take all comers, including those who do  not want health insurance coverage to be mandated:)

    Calm down BTD (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    The New Deal is not going to be undone just like Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned.

    You are misreading what might happen on Tuesday.

    Will there be a stop to the expansion of the commerce clause? 50/50 chance yes.   But that is not a sign of the roll back of other programs.

    Government inertia is a powerful thing and while we might cut SS and Medicaid/Medicare we aren't going to get rid of them.

    The inevitable hysteria on both sides is unfortunate but then again it's the natural reaction to a change one way or another.

    We can agree that this ruling will be a change.   A change in that the court will not allow congress to expand the commerce clause indefinitely.  

    Go ahead and cut Soc Security (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    Let's see what Baby Boomers do.  I've had to put up with that God damned often self righteous voting block my whole life and they pack weight.  Go ahead and cut their Social Security.  I dare you!  Yer gonna find out a few things.  Whoever does it is unethical and also dumb as a post.

    They won't cut (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    Social Security for the early part of the Baby Boom, particularly the majority who are at or getting close to retirement age (although they may cut it a bit for those at the tag-end of the Baby Boom).  They're not stupid, and they know how much weight that demographic carries.  It's you guys, and younger, who will carry the brunt of the cut.  Unfortunately, and I don't approve of it.
    And, BTW, Tracy, as a Baby Boomer myself, I must say that I resent being painted with such a broad brush.  I have always been a far-leftist, and have never considered myself self-righteous.  I have always fought for, supported, and voted for, the rights of the poor, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the discriminated-against, the average working person, and for higher taxes for those who have benefited from the advantages of living in this country (even when, at this point, they would mean higher taxes for us), taking the cap off of Social Security withholding, a single-payer health-care plan, and on and on.

    Taking my brush off of ya :) (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    Sorry, you guys just seem to get everything.  And I was going to get a monthly Social Security payment due to my mom's death for four years if I went to college.  It wasn't much but at least I wouldn't have starved.  But Reagan cut that when I was 17, dad with a head injury and sporadically reliable on most adult family duties, mom dead....thanks Ronnie.

    Don't they claim that they can't afford (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    all of you though?  I thought that was the new talking point, Social Security is busted in 2017 or something like that.

    If they stop (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:41:12 PM EST
    extending the d@mned "social security tax holiday," no it won't go "busted" in 2017 or anytime soon.  I seem to remember something more like late 2030's or early 2040's.  I'm too busy to Google that right now.  If they take the f#cking cap off of Social Security withholding, it is okay for far longer than that.

    They need to raise the cap (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:13:01 PM EST
    They must, we must make up for the "holiday" now.

    What cut? (none / 0) (#19)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    In 2009, the unfunded obligation of the SS Trust Fund was $15.1 trillion dollars. We are quickly approaching the 2:1 ratio, when every retiree will be supported by two workers.

    I'm open to suggestions, but there is a wall-o-reality looming.


    "Go ahead and cut Soc Security" (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:12:59 AM EST
    Obama is seeking to oblige you on that one. The quickest surest way to see Social Security gutted is to re-elect this Democratic fraud.

    Actually, you might first focus on Ryan (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    And, I suspect that the full-throated support by Mr. Romney & his band of not-so-merry rightist Repubs for Paul Ryan's destruction of Medicare as we know it--the privatization plan in the official Repub budget--will be a major focus of Democratic ads during the fall general election campaign.  Recall that there is a lot of film of the bravado Repubs speaking very directly against Medicare.  After that is underscored in the Presidential debates, we Dems might really have a good chance at Arizona's vacated Senate seat (Senator Carmona sounds nice) & Arizona's electoral votes.

    Yep, you might want to focus on demonstrated legislative action--& by whom--rather than Repub talking points...every once in awhile anyway.


    And I can't even believe you threw down (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    Roe v. Wade.  If I'm pregnant with a child that has Down's syndrome the fact that Republicans will rape me with some giant penile looking probe isn't that big of a deal.

    A journey begins (4.25 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:47:24 PM EST
    with the first step.

    True enough (none / 0) (#190)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    But the first step will possibly take a 5-4 on a new law.  Long way to go to overturn established law.

    Fiscal reality is more likely to do that instead of the court and legislature.


    I don't unfriend Conservatives (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    on Facebook.  I really want to live with everyone.  This week has been hard though, because some of them act like someone slapped them in the face and they might be waking up just a tiny bit.

    One of them writes today on Facebook, "I worked hard for my Social Security.  I'm sick of Them calling it an entitlement."  This guy is Whack Winger.  He lives a bit North of me.  I think it might be Jim.  Does he know who "them" is?  Who are these pronoun people, the shadow you wanna kick?  It is your fricken party you flaunt 24/7 Bubba!

    I wrote on his wall who Peter G Peterson is.  Maybe he'll google if he's brave enough to turn Fox News off for five minutes.  I finished by writing something that many would consider mean as a snake.  I told him I'd fight for his Social Security but he needs to fight for others as well because my kids have no jobs other than minimum wage jobs and no healthcare coverage that they can afford.  I wrote to him that it isn't just all about him.  And I'm writing this with my real name signed to it, and I can't get my fingers to STFU.  They just won't.

    Then why don't you start demanding (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    the SC declare Obamacare unconstitutional and get with me demanding a single payer system based on Medicare???

    I think the answer is:

    1. You actually have a pretty good health care plan.

    2. So your vision is that we make it "better" by having someone else pay for it instead of having everyone pay for it with a federal sales tax.

    And SocSec is not an "entitlement" as generally misunderstood. It is a insurance program designed to pay back part of your contributions as part of a retirement plan. And yes, I started contributing in 1952 when I was 14 and did so for the next 51 years. The last 35 or so I paid the max.

    Jim, Josh was denied twice by Tricare (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    for the surgery that he needed to save his life when he was four.  My husband was actually doing his first year long tour in Iraq when they denied him.  Three "poor" children on Colorado Medicaid got the surgery to save their lives though, while Josh was denied.  The Tricare insurers denied service in order to generate larger profits for themselves before the ACA kicked in.  Our insurance was not very good.

    Another Army spouse that is one of my best friends has had RA since she was a child.  She was denied a newer treatment when methotrexate stopped working for her.  Her husband was deployed too and she had three little kids to take care of.  I tried to get her to fight them, but she felt beat down.  She just accepted it until her husband came home and with his encouragement she fought them and got Enbrel.

    The ACA fixed everything that was wrong with Tricare.  And it was heavenly, but I think it is just about over now.  It was a great year though!  And we got through that horrible halo traction crap with Josh, we are just about finished now.......another month.  But Tricare did let us know that we might have to pay that whole bill because it was authorized under ACA rules and if ACA is found Unconstitutional they may not be responsible for paying for it.  I'm not $hitting you, they sent us the letter about six weeks ago I think.  I just laugh.  Come get me losers....let us fight.  I'll do the whole thing on the internet!  I swear to God I will.


    I am on the record at the Great Orange Satan (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    To be one to fight like hell for single payer.  Slinkerwink put up a diary the other day about the fight that must happen.  I will fight. I have to for Josh Jim.  It really isn't even a choice for me if I truly care about my son.  Will you join us at the Orange Satan?  Anybody not wanting to fight should just avoid me, and my comments, and my diaries.  I am only on for fighting for single payer then, Medicare for all.

    Join you at what?? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    Fighting for single payer (none / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    DailyKos has a very organized group of people fighting for single payer that evolved and developed over years.  They have been a part of paving the way in CA for a single payer plan fight, and they have made some respectable headway.

    If you are serious about fighting the fight start with diaries by nyceve and slinkerwink.  They have been fighting this fight for a very long time.  nyceve is a nurse, who understood the insurance system denial of services from the inside.  Slinkerwink is a young woman, who was born deaf.  She was denied implants several times by BCBS, but finally won and I think she has some hearing now.  She is very gifted and talented though in fighting for policy.


    Join you at what?? (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    Can't Wait to Vote... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    ...for the guy who may be the one who enabled the dismantling of the New Deal with his signature legislation.

    Awesome !!!

    seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    Of all the criticisms, I just don't get this one.  So no president should ever have considered implementing a national health care plan with a mandate?

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:16:07 AM EST
    No president should mandate that people do business with for-profit corporations that get to skim 20+ percent off the top. The ACA does some good things, but the mandate that citizens buy private insurance from for-profit corporations is clearly not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

    Twenty Percent ???? (none / 0) (#116)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    Please document this corporation - I want to invest.

    If all the insurers have the same profits and they are high it could only come from a lack of competition.

    I would be happy with a 6% return on investment. I am quite willing to start an insurance company and undercut my competitions prices.

    Why can't I?


    the government (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    also raises your taxes if you don't have kids. That's all the mandate is. Kids often skim way more than 20% off the top.

    So, as a class of people, (none / 0) (#137)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    as a matter of policy you view private healthcare CEOs as being equally worthy of taxpayer support as children?  Um,okay.

    no not equally worthy (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    But I do think having health insurance is important.  And it's more that the framing is similar.  In other words, the government isn't forcing you to buy insurance any more than they are forcing you to have kids.

    Oh, absolutely. (none / 0) (#149)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    Well, if they do strike down the mandate, hopefully the ruling will be very narrow.  And as the ACA wasn't a net positive for healthcare reform, it will open up the opportunity to tax Americans in a way that will actually provide meaningful healthcare insurance (in the form of public insurance that will solve the economic sustainability problem) with the purpose of actually provide healthcare instead of CEO profit.

    In other words, I don't have kids, and don't mind paying taxes to help the kids, but not those who unnecessarily profit off the kids.  As a matter of policy, in any given year I don't actually need healthcare I gladly pay taxes so that others can receive healthcare, but not for those who profit unnecessarily from it.

    (Caveat - this is really about policy, not the case itself, as of course a broadly conservative ruling tomorrow could have much more sinister implications outside of this issue..on that BTD is definitely right to worry).


    That's What You Got From My Post ? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    The goal was to get every American access to affordable health care, so it was a massive failure IMO from day 1.

    Now it turns out the legislation contains a provision that might do some very serious damage to core Democratic Party principles and I am to be... not sure, but apparently holding the idiots responsible for all of it is something we can't do.

    Keep in mind, that provision was not in the original sales pitch, it was compromised away to the very people who are salivating over the consequences of that compromise.  And the worse part of all of it, the D's controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and this is the product they produced.

    None of them are fit for service.

    I'll say it again, Obama has caused more damage to the Democratic party than any Republican could ever hope to do.  And yet, most Democrats are lining up to make sure he remains in office for another four.

    Maybe after that four, they can 'compromise' away even more of our futures.  In case you forgot, Obama is ready and willing to start hacking on Social Security.  But we don't need to discuss that, it's time to for Obama to forget his past and pretend he cares about the people.

    So from the original post, "Can't Wait to Vote for the guy..."

    They took a grand idea and turned it into rotting meat and now they expect us to eat it.  So to answer your question, yes I think the President should consider implementing national Health Care.  But the problem is Obama's need to get it passed let a grand idea become ineffectual legislation that can't hold up in court.

    And no one will hold the guy responsible, it's those evil republicans I am told as they hand me my free "hope and change' blinders.  I got duped 4 years ago, not going to happen again.


    No, no (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    Don't say that. (Even though I completely agree with you and have said so for 4 years).

    I'll say it again, Obama has caused more damage to the Democratic party than any Republican could ever hope to do.  And yet, most Democrats are lining up to make sure he remains in office for another four.

    You will get called stupid and a hater and told that all you do is criticize Obama.  Why can't you see the light?


    At least the post you quote (3.50 / 2) (#127)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    added something to the discussion

    As opposed to "Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah!" (none / 0) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    Or "at least he's not as bas as the other guy."

    Here's a thought (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    Since you seem to think that my comments do not add to the discussion (yet you always seem to want to chime in to tell me how wrong you think I am), why not just skip over my comments and save us both some time?

    Psssst.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    ...not to point out the obvious, but you got slammed about a post that added nothing, with a post that added..... drum roll please, nothing.

    I thought of that (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    when I wrote it, but like jb I just couldn't help myself.

    Naw (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    this is about every comment I make.  CST does not usually agree with me - that's fine.  But many times I believe she is completely wrong and blidned by partisanship too.

    I was actually agreeing with your comment because I have said the exact same things and been told I am stupid - as recently as a couple of days ago. Apparently, only agreement around here is what people want for discussion and some people feel that if you have a different take, you are automatically wrong.

    My suggestion was that apparently for those people who constantly think I am wrong or not adding to the discussion, should save themselves the trouble and not respond.

    It's a pretty simple thing to do and it maintains civility.


    Ha! (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:39:21 PM EST
    My suggestion was that apparently for those people who constantly think I am wrong or not adding to the discussion, should save themselves the trouble and not respond.
    Why do that when I can just "2" your butt until the next time we agree? :)

    'Cuz (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    I can "2" you back.  :)

    darn straight (none / 0) (#172)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    Apparently lousy has no idea (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    of our history :)

    Amateur :) (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    the only provision (none / 0) (#126)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    that isn't being held up in court is the mandate.  The rest of it stands.  And almost every national health care plan in discussion had a mandate, with the exception of what Obama was talking about in the '08 primaries.  BTW, which is something that I supported, and was ridiculed for not being realistic - since of course a national health care plan must have a mandate to keep it affordable.

    So I would've been happy to keep it out, but I certainly wasn't blindsided by it's existence, and I wasn't surprised it ended up there in the legislation making stage since it seemed like something that was being talked about as an important piece.

    Now a significant number of legal minds I trust say it is constitutional, and the court goes a different way.  But somehow it's Obama's fault the court is going to rule against the new deal - because he tried to get a bill through which does something that is being challenged on an issue that a ton of Dems have supported over the years (the mandate).

    I'm not saying you should vote for the guy, if you think the ACA is a rotting carcas, do what you will with it.  But I'm sorry I just find this argument counter-productive to any meaningful healthcare reform, because they would also run into this same "provision" which is now being challenged.

    I guess it's not worth trying anything meaningful if it means the court could go another way.  Maybe FDR shouldn't have bothered with the New Deal at all since they struck down parts of it.  You may not find this legislation meaningful, but any more progressive version of the legistlation that was in discussion would have run into the same exact issue.


    The mandate (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    really had to be in there if you were going to get any kind of concessions from the insurance companies. If he had tried to pass his original plan I doubt it would have gone anywhere because it actually encouraged people to only buy insurance when they needed it.

    The problem I have had with the whole thing is that Obama mandated you buy insurance but then LIMITED your choices for insurance. The way the ACA is set up you are either going to have to pay a lot for insurance or buy junk insurance. The reason the ACA has had so many problems really is a lot of Obama's fault because he never really wanted to or could explain it to the voters. Then the GOP started squealing "socialism" and he had NO response to what they were doing. He was caught flat-footed ONCE AGAIN. And he spent WAY too much time on this legislation chasing votes that were never going to be there.


    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    but what you're talking about in the second paragraph is kind of irrelevant to the supreme court case.  The reason it has problems is the supreme court decided it has problems.  All the screaming and pr doesn't really matter beyond influencing the court and future elections, since it ultimately passed anyway.

    I guess what I'm saying is there is plenty to be mad at the cuurent admin about, but being mad that he proposed a bill the supreme court is about to strike down seems unreasonable given it is being struck down on a provision that many on the left seem to think "had to be in there if you were going to get any kind of concessions from the insurance companies".


    Where you are wrong, IMO, is that (none / 0) (#143)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    it wasn't about getting concessions from the insurance companies.  Insurance companies don't vote.  It was about getting votes from elected officials.  Given that Republican votes were not required for the bill (health care could have been passed by reconciliation in the Senate), it was really about the fact that enough Democrats in Congress are bought and paid for by insurance companies.  The question for real reform was always whether enough Democrats could be convinced to vote to introduce public healthcare for people below the age of 65 who were not below the poverty line.  Where the Democratic leadership (including, but by no means restricted to Obama) deserve blame is for the decision, for whatever reason, not to pursue that course.  

    Further, I think there is a more than reasonable arguement that if the Democrats had pushed harder for the achievable goal of securing public healthcare, then the case would not have gotten as far as it has in court.  Part of the reason that the Republicans are on the cusp of, and may acutally, succeed in court, is because the bill is so unpopular.  Had public health insurance been enacted along with a mandate, the bill actually would have had a lot more public support, and even conservative justices wouldn't have dared overturn it.


    I think if the health insurance reform (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    actually included public insurance - I could see the conservative opposition being even greater than it was.

    I think that would've been a worthy trade, but I don't think it would've lead to a less opposition in court.


    On what grounds... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    could a public insurance plan have been challenged in court as unconstitutional?

    The right of the government to tax and spend can't be challenged, can it?  A challenge of the mandate is understandable, buy from a private health insurance company or be punished is new territory.  But pay your taxes to fund a public health care system/war/whatever or be punished is s.o.p.


    I think a lot depends on the (none / 0) (#156)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    narrowness (or not) of the ruling that comes down.  If all that's lost is the mandate, than I'm really not that worried about it.  But thist post by BTD is about the concern that it could provide grounds to dismantle the new deal programs.  And those are public programs.  So I would imagine that would apply to a future public insurance option as well.

    I think I misread ya... (none / 0) (#168)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    I took your use of challenge to mean "court challenge", I don't see that happening.

    The Repubs (some corporate Dems too) and their paymasters will legislatively challenge all the gains made by broked*cks (and by extension, the nation at large) under the New Deal, to be sure, they've been doing that for over thirty years, and suceeding.


    Not misread (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    I think the fear is that this ruling will give them grounds to challenge the rest of it in court.

    If that is not the case, and all we lose in this fight is the mandate, I think we can live with that.  The concern is that the legal argument that is being made against the mandate could have broader legal implications for other public programs.  At least that's my reading of this post/discussion.


    More likely... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    Donnie is out of his element;)...alotta this constitutional law sh*t flies right over my head...I thought the only real point up for debate before the court is whether the government can force you to buy sh*t from Acme Corp. you may not want by threat of fine.

    I thought the issue of federal taxation powers, and the government buying sh*t you may not want/like with those taxes, was rock solid settled.


    The conservative opposition (none / 0) (#151)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    may have been louder, but overall public opinion would have been smaller.  Remember, 2/3 of Americans wanted a public option.

    dk: What you say makes sense. Only one word (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    in basic reply: Lieberman.  The day that insurance-controlled Conn. Senator said "no" to expanded Medicare sounded the final bell that said no to what-should-have-been.  (He was courted aplenty by the WH and by the Dems in Congress...but, he had the "power" at that time under Senate rules.  It sounds nuts to acknowledge that for me, but--IMO & in every real vote-counting way--I believe that is what happened.

    I guess my reply is the number 50 (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    That's how many Democratic Senator's votes were needed to pass a bill by reconciliation.  Lieberman's vote wasn't needed, just as 0 Republican votes were needed.

    Numbers (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    The vote numbers while important are not an accurate reflection of that debate.

    It should have never come down to one or two holdouts, the longer the debate went on, the more the D's wobbled.  They let the minority frame the entire debate and then backed down at damn near every turn and gave up way too much.  Instead of discussing the public option with the public, it came down death panels non-sense.

    Remember how many things they took off the table before the debate even started ?

    The D's got soooooo outplayed, they damn near had filibuster proof majority, yet ended-up dishing out concession after concession get that magic 50.  And yet somehow it's not their fault that the very legislation the majority of Americans wanted and voted for got turned into something that the majority doesn't like today.

    Obama could have been pimping it, like he's pimping himself right now.  On the podium convincing America why we need X Y & Z in the reform.  Instead he sat by while the right disseminated lie and lie.  

    So spare me the one vote BS, it should have never come close to one vote.


    It shouldn't have, but it did (none / 0) (#193)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    And, I agree that the Dems got outplayed in the Court of Public Opinion.  The ability of the Repubs to follow a disciplined scary, fear mongering message to the public was key ...the manufactured town meetings in August of 2009 & the coordinated. Koch-sponsored Tea Party--and the simple message machine was nowhere near matched by the WH&Dems.  IMO, we Dems blew the message badly...fir one thing, we did not refine a straightforward, honest, simple message and repeat it to the point that the public could say it while sleeping.  We also had another problem because the tent of the party could not get together on the message.  So, on the importance of messaging, we got outwitted & outplayed (kingpd of like losing on Survivor.)

    As for the substance, I believe that the President & Democrats achieved a forward movement that had always been out of reach, out of reach for 70 years before.  That is a huge achievement.  The dynamics of healthcare in the US have always been complicated, politically treacherous. Amazing isn't it that the public can be so enthusiastic at the outset of a move to expand healthcare...only to find in 1993 and now that fear of change overtakes the determination to move ahead!  $$$$ anyone? And yet, that is the reality. I think that the President knew that reality from the get go...and had the initiative to power thru to a comprehensive act in any event.


    The President compromised (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    with the $$$$ of which you speak (and again, not just the President, the leadership of the Democratic party generally) instead of fighting for good policy.  There is evidence of this that you continue to ignore with assertions regarding motivations of people you don't know that, again, are counter to the facts.  

    Almost should keep my mouth shut (none / 0) (#199)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:34:46 PM EST
    but I do know some of the players. Yoiks...and, now, I'll be quiet.

    It shouldn't have, but it did (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    And, I agree that the Dems got outplayed in the Court of Public Opinion.  The ability of the Repubs to follow a disciplined scary, fear mongering message to the public was key ...the manufactured town meetings in August of 2009 & the coordinated. Koch-sponsored Tea Party--and the simple message machine was nowhere near matched by the WH&Dems.  IMO, we Dems blew the message badly...fir one thing, we did not refine a straightforward, honest, simple message and repeat it to the point that the public could say it while sleeping.  We also had another problem because the tent of the party could not get together on the message.  So, on the importance of messaging, we got outwitted & outplayed (kingpd of like losing on Survivor.)

    As for the substance, I believe that the President & Democrats achieved a forward movement that had always been out of reach, out of reach for 70 years before.  That is a huge achievement.  The dynamics of healthcare in the US have always been complicated, politically treacherous. Amazing isn't it that the public can be so enthusiastic at the outset of a move to expand healthcare...only to find in 1993 and now that fear of change overtakes the determination to move ahead!  $$$$ anyone? And yet, that is the reality. I think that the President knew that reality from the get go...and had the initiative to power thru to a comprehensive act in any event.


    Of course, there were a few other Dems (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    in the Senate...enough to make the difference in votes (like Nelson & Lincoln & Pryor) who were known to go nowhere near that proposal.  I don't much deal in "what ifs" and it may be a bit inaccurate to rely solely on Lieberman for the extended Medicare vote...Yet, the chance for that to succeed came down to Lieberman, in any realistic vote-counting sense.  That is all I'm saying.

    Let me add as well: You take the Senators you have...a WH and/or Dem leadership can persuade, cajole, arm-twist, make deals (as with Nelson; and, as with even the good sweetener via health clinic for Sanders.) When all is tried, tho, if the Repubs held fast--which they did-- and if there are less than a handful of defections or threatened defections by Democrats, lamentation doesn't change the vote count.  Unfortunately, in some ways, the mores of today don't seem to allow for the LBJ brand of beat-em-up cajoling & the attitude of the public itself seems to be squeamish about the deals that a Big Deal often takes.  

    So, I think the WH went where & how it could garner the necessary votes.  Ab initio, the WH nor anyone else could make it be otherwise.  Note: Even today as a total unravel may loom, the citizenry is some very recent polls (NBC, WashPost/ABC, Gallup) don't like the ACA, don't like the status quo, and don't seem to have anywhere near a consensus on any overall structural approach.  The polled public, now & earlier, definitely support a number of the popular individual components.  What does it all mean?  Maybe that it will be a cold day in he$$ before any major leader throws his/her capital into the throes of health care reform.


    Sorry, you are rewriting history. (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    Plenty of evidence that the WH (and the Democratic leadership generally, I don't lay the blame solely on Obama, it takes most of the Democratic leadship being beholden to for-profit insurance companies to have led it down the path it has gone) did not try to garner the necessary votes, particularly after it cut its deal with the insurance cos and pharma.

    And you're losing count.  You've come up with four names...we could have had 9/10 Democratic Senators defect, and obviously at least that many did, if not more.  And if you are trying to say there is no more cajoling of politics in the Senate cloakroom anymore...well, I think that's a stretch...politics still looks like a rough sport to me.


    In the Senate, the number is 60--not 50 (none / 0) (#189)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:31:10 PM EST
    Whether you & I agree with that misbegotten approach to Senate "politics" isn't the issue, it just is.

    As for what it took to "garner" votes, I do understand your point. I simply disagree because the sad state of things had to do with who-would-be-willing-to-vote-for-what outside the private insurance structure.  Neither you nor I nor anyone here knows IF sweetness, hardness, push, commitment would have obtained those votes.  I seriously doubt it; and, that is not re-writing history--it is based upon what we know (historically) of the central players in the healthcare arena in the Senate.

    I really think that you & I want the same result on healthcare.  We appraise the situation very differently.  And, it is important for me to restate a factor that is convincing to me as to what was possible & why that decision was arrived at: The Clinton fight for universal coverage in 1993...single payer, uniform, all that was tried. They got clobbered...and, they together with other Democratic leaders had a decidedly different bent almost a generation later in order to get the ACA...much more compromise to get the ACA as a result of the massive defeat of what was then known as Hillarycare.  As for me, I applauded the Clintons then and I applaud Obama now.  


    One word: Reconciliation (none / 0) (#192)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    Have you not heard?  

    Yes, I know the word, and I know the legal (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:30:04 PM EST
    Challenge that would have followed.  While it might have been just as well to have the fight earlier in Court, the downside would have been that people would not have enjoyed any provisions of the ACA as the SCt would have had an easier time of deciding o process & throwing the whole thing out for that reason.

    You're opining that a (none / 0) (#196)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    court would have enjoined the passage of an act increasing eligility for Medicare over some legal challenge regarding Reconciliation?  No way.

    Hoo hah ...but, I admire your idealism (none / 0) (#200)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    And, once again, (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by dk on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    I'll repeat till the ends of the earth that polls showed at the time that 2/3 of Americans supported government administered healthcare.  It's telling when Democratic operatives try to downplay that and pretend that the reason public insurance hasn't been legislated is due to lack of support among the public.

    The Byrd Rule is (none / 0) (#182)
    by BTAL on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    quite specific on when and how reconciliation can be used.  A public option and/or medicare for all probably would not have met the test.

    If They/He Had the Fortitude to Call... (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    ...the mandate a tax, all of this would be irrelevant.  But they are so GD scared of being labeled by the republicans, they tried to disguise a tax and now that poor choice is being tested.

    Without the mandate, it's nothing but tweaks, not in any conceivable way could it be considered reform.  It's benefits people at the expense of others, and not the ones who can afford the additional expense.  

    Did your legal minds take note of... forget the justice who hinted strongly to the fact that the mandate was unconstitutional last week or the week before ?  This is what everyone is basing their belief that it will be struck down.


    The problem with your statement is (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    The administration argued that the bill is non-severable as written, meaning that the Court (in the government's argument) can't just get rid of the mandate and leave the bill in tact - it all goes.

    Now, the Court has from time to time, actually read in a severability clause into legislation when it wasn't there, and they can do it in this case, of course but in this case there was affirmative argument against that.

    The problem with just getting rid of the mandate is that the rest of the bill doesn't work - pre-existing conditions, what's known as "death spirals" as GA6th points out (not buying insurance until you are sick), etc.  

    And if the Court decides to sever the bill on its own, there is a good chance it has to go through the entire bill to say what's in and what's out.  Again, they might do that, but it isn't going to be as clean cut as "the only provision that isn't being held up in court is the mandate."


    i didnt mean to suggest (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    The rest of it would stand without the mandate.  Just that that is the only part of the bill with a constitutional challenge.

    The rest may go down as well, but they will go down due to the mandate.

    And as for the sniping above, sorry.  I think a lot of the times you assign opinions to me that I neither express nor have.  Sometimes I get frustrated by your unwillingness to address my posts and desire to argue against issues you project onto me.   I find that very very frustrating, and it affects the way I engage you generally but I will try to be more civil.


    I will do the same (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    Because I think the same of you.  I think you jump on me and assign thoughts and motivations that aren't there and I find it very frustrating as well to try and engage you in a civil conversation.

    The New Deal is Almost Dead (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    And the mandate is part of what is killing it.  And I'd worry far more about what Obama & Co. are going to do during the lame duck session to Social Security than what overturning a deeply unpopular mandate designed to prop up the insurance industry does to the legacy of the New Deal.  As Ian Welsh said, the mandate is evil.  If a bunch of conservatives want to kill their own awful idea because they hate Obama that's fine with me.  In fact, it's fantastic.

    Obama and the Democrats (and thus much of the alleged "left") have no interest in saving the New Deal.  Obama hates it, in fact.  Thinks it's an old way of thinking.  The entire point of the mandate is to avoid the kind of government programs enacted during the New Deal.  It is, in fact, to prevent the enactment of such programs. That's why it was developed.

    As for legal reasoning, does that even still exist on the Court?  Isn't it kind of like partisan policy analysis, completely devoid of any intellectual honesty?  

    Personally, I won't be surprised if the mandate survives.  Corporate America loves it and, thus, so do the conservatives.   Substituting corporate mandates, where you are forced to pay  Blue Cross or Citi or Apple instead of taxes to the Government, that's the real agenda here.  It's a bipartisan one.  And that's what's going to kill the New Deal.  The rest is just window dressing.    

    One more thing (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:49:02 PM EST
    In this way, New Deal jurisprudence is essentially the same thing as Roe v. Wade.  I'm supposed to care about saving the ruling Roe v. Wade as much or more than I care about women actually having access to abortion.  So it doesn't matter that abortion rights have been restricted more by Obama than Bush, it only matters that he appointed justices to protect abortion rights in theory.  The fact that a lot of women have no ability to exercise those rights is a minor detail.  

    Similarly, I'm supposed to care more about the New Deal jurisprudence, than about actually saving the policies that made up the New Deal.   I mean who cares if the jurisprudence still exists for New Deal programs if the programs themselves no longer exist?  It's the programs that matter.  And those are going to be weakened, if not killed, no matter what the Court rules because both parties want that to happen as a matter of policy.  



    My goodness, Hoover is great, (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:20:15 PM EST
    FDR is satan,  a twenty something wants to end social security and place her trust in the Dimons of the world, the poor should get a job, fascism, aka extremist conservatism, is what we need. A dose of sanity seems necessary, but I guess that is what the Zimmerman threads are for.

    Apparently, they have not been kept (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    busy enough...

    Hoover was correct (2.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    When, he said, regarding The New Deal, "You cannot extend the mastery of government over the daily life of a people without somewhere making it master of people's souls and thoughts...Every step in that direction poisons the very roots of liberalism. It poisons political equality, free speech, free press, and equality of opportunity. It is the road not to more liberty but to less liberty. True liberalism is found not in striving to spread bureaucracy, but in striving to set bounds to it. True liberalism seeks all legitimate freedom first in the confident belief that without such freedom the pursuit of other blessings is in vain."

    So, you're absolutely correct BTD. That is the goal. To roll back the forced collectivism and alphabet soup FDR unleashed upon the nation, because it is all breaking down.

    Nothing hateful about it. Nothing racist or pro-rich or anti-poor. It's just about liberty. Nothing more, nothing less.

    It won't happen tomorrow. It may take decades to accomplish. But that is, indeed, the goal; and I'm all for it.

    Hoover was correct (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    Wait, what?

    I was agreeing with you (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    To roll back much, most of FDR's overreach is indeed the goal. I'm good with it. It will take a great deal of time, of education and paradigm shifting, but liberty--individual liberty--is the brass ring.

    As Scalia recently agreed, Wickard blew the commerce clause all out of proportion with the intent, and that has lead to all manner of mischief. Time to turn back the clock to when the Four Horsemen sat on the SCOTUS.


    I got that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    I wish Republicans were as forthright as you and said "Hoover was correct."

    I don't really speak for the GOP (4.00 / 2) (#12)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    Well, I'm not a Republican...and Hoover was a progressive, so he wasn't right about everything. But he nailed the New Deal. About the New Deal, he was downright prophetic.

    Without FDR's threat to stack the court, Wickard would never have passed muster. Since Wickard, the 16 words of the commerce clause have been interpreted as meaning "Congress Can do any damn thing they choose, to anyone, for any reason, at any time".

    Tomorrow will be interesting, to say the least, but it may be the first step toward coaxing that particular genie back into the bottle.


    Question: your views about social programs/// (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    Does your way of thinking allow for any help for the poor, disabled, sick, etc? Are we talkin Ayn Rand and/or "libertarian" wonderment thinking? Admittedly, I let out a gasp when your revisionism & Hoover crossed my eyes. But, really, is it all no-holds-barred capitalism, full application of Darwinism, and all that? Or, is it some bravado icing the school cake with a paean to isolationist individualism?

    In short: What does your picture of 21st century life in the USA look like IF you had the economic positions you'd want to see?  And, please, a favor: Do talk about the role of money and the interaction between $$$ and people as well...because the $$$ aspect and the "I want mine, let them get theirs" factor really cannot be dismissed/disregarded since the days that we moved to our current currency.


    In short, no. (3.25 / 4) (#25)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    The choice isn't between "social Darwinism" and A socialist state. There is much ground in between, and we've never been the US of Upton Sinclair (though we have been taught that we were). Read Hoover's words again. He is correct. As you surrender more and more control of your daily choices to the government, you lose yourself, you lose freedom and autonomy. The Constitution was erected as an impediment to exactly this, and was compromised during the Great Depression.

    To answer your question. Wealth is not a zero sum game. That Bill Gates makes billions takes nothing from me. In fact, not only has he created, in his wake, untold millionaires and thousandaires, he's enriched my life, and probably yours. Making money is not taking money.

    When the federal government stops redistributing wealth, the public will not starve. Towns, cities, and states, all who are way, way more in touch with what people actually need, will fill those gaps. Kids were mean to a bus monitor and some $500K was raised to salve her wounds in about two days. Americans are not stingy. We just don't need the federal government to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve--to take from some and give to others.


    Oh, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    you really have a fantasy world if you think people will not starve. What you are advocating goes on all the time in third world countries. I will never understand why conservatives want to turn us into a third world country. The only reason I can think of is that they think that they are special and will never have to suffer under the consequences of what they state.

    You obviously do not work with your local food bank to make such a statement as you have. Food banks in my area run out of food constantly. For every one person that gets media attention to get 500K there are probably 1,000 who do not get any attention.


    Think it through (2.40 / 5) (#33)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    Do you really believe that without exploding the commerce clause to encompass Kelo and Wickard and the Individual Mandate, people would starve?

    Dude, the problem facing our "poor" is obesity. Visit Mexico City, see their poor. Obesity isn't the issue. Trust me.

    I understand. We live in the normative, and today the normative is Government Should Fix This, but that is the very dullest of tools. As Americans, we adapt, we change, we open lemonade stands and sell wheat in the open market. You think government is your friend. It is not. It is the old cranky aunt who stands between you and your dreams.


    Dude (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:40:24 PM EST
    the problem with our poor is the cheap food that they can only afford. And yes, people donate cheap food to food banks.

    Oh, good grief. You are really out there. You blame the government for all your problems. Like I said if you ideas are so great why don't third world countries have all the wonderful and magical things that you seem to think will happen here if we change our policies to mirror the third world.

    You apparently don't understand that 2 and 2 equals four. You seem to think that if we do the same thing as they do in third world countries that we will get different results


    huh? (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    I have no problems. I'm fine. I blame the government for the condition of the nation. Who should I blame? Dr. Who?

    I think that if we do the same things we did when the country was booming, we may boom again. Crazy me. We should emulate Greece.


    Booming (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    when? Exactly what year or decade are you talking about?

    Thinking it through (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    And I have no idea who you are, but I am nothing if not adaptable and changeable. And what keeps our poor poor, and caused over 40% of our children to live in what is identified as poverty, is the rich of this country and the party they bought.  You can't work your way out of poverty anymore.  You certainly can't work your way to middle class.  That is over until further notice.  Now if you want to rein in the rich, tax them appropriately, get the filthy money and special interest out of our political system and reinstall some ethics, perhaps we can get to a place where everyone might agree to not kill each other for profit.  As it stands right now though, you really don't have much of a reason to expect daily civilized behavior from the civilians any longer.

    And I have no idea who you are (1.83 / 6) (#42)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:11:17 PM EST
    But I'm happy to be the voice of reason. 40% of our children do not live in poverty, unless you define poverty as having only one game system.

    Of course you can work your way to the middle class! My daughter (24 y.o) just found a job at $48,500/year with three weeks vacation! I didn't do it. Her mom didn't do it. She did it. What a country, no?

    Stop looking over the fence at what your neighbor makes. Stop demanding his stuff. Create something!


    Sorry, 40% of children live in economically (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    unstable households, it is only 1 in 4 living in poverty. I think you are truly full of it too with your story about your daughter's job unless you in New York State or a similar area, and then good luck living on that wage.

    I think more info is needed re the background (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:31:54 PM EST
    of the daughter:  educational background, work experience, location of job, and who does she know?

    What? (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    What is an "economically unstable household"?
    Do they comb the landfills? Debtors camps? Maybe the only have access to DSL?

    I think Mitt Romney got lonely (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:53:22 PM EST
    and signed into TalkLeft.  And that's okay, but dude you are really out of touch with the reality for everyone else out there.

    and yet? (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    It's always the moonbat who goes to the ad hom first, Go figure, huh?

    Oh, you aren't Mitt? Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    I have no doubt you can get your daughter a campaign gig for 48,500 though....or something on K Street like stamp licker

    lmao! (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:05:16 PM EST
    She got the job at liberal ground zero. Harvard. Maybe she can polish Warren's Cherokee creds!

    I just realized (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    You told me the same thing that you told the Winklevoss twins, quit whining and go create something.  I'm so sorry that I called you Mitt Romney, because you are Larry Summers :)  Now Larry, if you have hung around here at all, you know I can't stand you :)

    And if your daughter is only getting 48,500 at Harvard......THAT SUCKS!!!!!


    MT - girl, you are on a roll tonight!! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    Based upon a number of things, lobo (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:01:14 PM EST
    your last sentence in the statement about candidate Warren can only come from one source, a political source. The syntax & slogan-type statement is a giveaway.  Hey, its okay to admit to being a Republican...campaign worker or otherwise.

    Weird night (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    I gave Elizabeth Warren a $100 a few hours before this comment was made :)  Very kind campaign worker for her making calls, they only asked for $50 but it isn't like I have a candidate in AL to send money to.  In fact I can't think of anyone better than Warren to spend pin money on.  I'm sure I'll give money again before it is all done.

    Warren being Cherokee?  It is a tiny bit personal.  Only because one of my great grandparents was Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw????? Who knows for certain.  I always assumed we were Cherokee because the land my family leases to an oil company in Oklahoma is part of the land granted to those that survived the Trail of Tears.

    It was not even until we moved to Alabama and my son Josh who loves history took classes in the local Native American history that I understood that I might be 1/16th of another tribe.  He brought the whole history home to me, wanting to know which we were.  I don't know.  I did know that the Native American tribe I am related to tried very very hard to be becoming to the new whites, all of the children were named after important white people.  My great grandfather's name was Grover Cleveland.  I realized how sad it all was though through my son.  The different local tribes fighting each other in proxy wars for the French...the English, and then the Trail of Tears.  The ultimate betrayal, and whoever in my family knew of that wished for it all to go away and be forever forgotten.  And so it is other than a small payment from an oil company that leases the mineral rights.  Those tribes did everything to assimilate though.  We are very diluted, and I could claim Native American under the Cherokee guidelines.  I suppose I could even find out if I wanted to exactly what tribe I am related to, but it seems painful.  My great grandparent certainly thought it was all too painful to pass on.  She wanted her children to be white, and now we all are.


    Did you family observe any (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Cherokee ceremonies?
    Did they serve the traditional Cherokee
     Crab with Tomato Mayonnaise Dressing or Cold Omelets with Crab Meat

    If so I envy your gastronomical delights


    I guess you didn't read what I wrote (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:34:24 AM EST
    I'm not surprised.  My great grandmother sought to escape her heritage.  She named all of her children after important white people, and I'm told that was a common tradition.  The Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and a few other tribes that were on the Trail of Tears sought to be assimilated into white culture.  They had been doing it for generations before that even.  They did not fight it, they wanted to join, but were still kicked out of their home.

    The only way I even know of this part of my heritage is that my family has an asset because of it that exists in owning land.  I'm told the land itself isn't much to look at, it is very desolate.  Nobody wants to live on it.  The mineral rights are leased to an oil company though so we have retained ownership over the generations because of that.


    I am not trying to minimize your (1.67 / 3) (#134)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    heritage. Sound interesting.

    The cynicism is directed at Warren and her ridiculous plagiarism.

    I actually have a helpful (not snide for just this once) suggestion. I read that Warren was gifted a  membership at Ancestry.com by the GOP.

    Since I doubt shes going to take advantage of the offer and you are a contributor with an interest in exploring your own fore-bearers why not ask the campaign to reassign the membership to you?


    I think the attacks on Warren (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    over her Native American heritage are horrendous.  They really are

    Classic diversion... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    because there is no counter to her expertise and message on the serious economic issues we face.

    If money were no object I'd strongly urge Wrren to drop the D from after her name, that is what hurts her credibility, not this stupid Cherokee-gate nonsense.  

    I don't care if she claims to have ancestors from Mars, the woman knows what's rotten in Denmark, and knowing is half the battle.


    All I've seen are attacks (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    And they are horrendous.  Families fall off the tribal rolls all the time.  When I lived in Sheridan WY, because of dilution of the tribes they had to change the parameters around "amount of blood" to be on the tribal rolls.  You used to have to be 1/4th Crow or Morning Star Cheyenne and they had to change it to 1/8th.  Many people could be on those rolls that live there or have family from there and choose not to be.  That doesn't change the heritage of their children though.  I think the Sioux nation had to change it to 1/8th long before the Crow tribe and the MS Cheyenne tribe.

    As for Warren not taking part in Native American activities.....as if the tribes are just one big happy family.  The Sioux very often to this day hate the Crow, the Crow were the pride of employed Cavalry Scouts.  They scouted for the United States Cavalry in the hunting down of many Sioux and other tribes.  There is much animosity between the Cheyenne and Crow in that area too even though their reservations are very close to each other.

    The tribes of this area that I live in now, of which Warren has heritage in, fought in wars against each other FOR the white guys. It was divide and then conquer all of them. I can see where Warren might want to observe a part of her heritage, it is only a part of her though. She isn't all Native American, and the tribes are NOT ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY.


    Why? (none / 0) (#145)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    According to all research - she does not have any Native American Heritage.

    It is almost certain that her claim was a cynical attempt to counter her pedestrian record as a researcher ( she seems to do well as a teacher) and achieve her professional goals

    Official Cherokee associations  are outraged

     Cherokees hammer Elizabeth Warren on ancestry claim


    That's pretty funny (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:49:01 AM EST
    Warren hasn't addressed charges that a great great grandfather rounded up Indians for the Trail of Tears.  What's she supposed to do with that?  She can't control being related to him anymore than she can control being related to the Cherokee nation.

    I know that many Native Americans are incensed by thinking that she is also related to someone who helped destroy them.  When will the Cherokee nation address that they fought to destroy their Native American brothers and sisters of other tribes?  I'm not here to sling mud, but who is the saint and who is the devil when you examine ALL of the history.  It is a tragedy, of which Warren took no part in.


    I agree on the GrandFather thing (none / 0) (#157)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    But the point of the article and a seemingly endless procession of expert genealogists is that Warren has absolutely no relation to native Americans. None, Zip, Nada.

    You may not be able to follow the story  closely in AL.

    Despite traveling to MA at their own expense Cherokee tribal leaders have been refused access to speak to Warren. They are not here due to the ironical twist of concerning Warren's  great grandfather's history in the military. They are here because she still has not relinquished a claim that has been definitively proven untrue.

    IMHO senseless self denial is a character flaw.


    What evidence? (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:10:38 PM EST
    I haven't seen any evidence that she isn't.  And I know how the tribal rolls work, and people who have a right to be on them aren't on them all the phricken time.  Just because your ancestor isn't on or chose not to be on the tribal rolls, it doesn't change your heritage.

    And if I were Warren I would probably (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:14:04 PM EST
    refuse to speak to the goon squad showing up to goon on me too.  Sorry, but it isn't an important issue on the priority list.  And I wouldn't waste time with a bunch of self righteous goons spoiling for a pointless death match.  She has more important things to do, but nice try wingers.  God only knows what money may have changed hands too trying to organize a Cherokee goon squad to go attack her.

    Aren't you concerned there may (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    be a slice of casino profits awaiting you?

    Do they have a Casino? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    I don't even know :)

    Not at all (1.00 / 2) (#112)
    by lobo58 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:26:13 AM EST
    You know, the exact opposite is true--the only support Warren has is from those who put politics above sanity. It's okay. Democrats should just admit it and come to terms with the truth; the "D" after her name is more important than anything else.

    But back to the topic at hand. The idea that without the New Deal--without decisions like Wickard--we'd be in dire straights is ridiculous.


    What do you know about being Cherokee? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:18:25 PM EST
    I'm dying to know

    Accepting your 40% of children (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    statement on face value, how does that square with results of the govt's War on Poverty that has been "waged" since LBJ with trillions upon trillions "invested"?

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    What was Bush's contribution to that?  First a President has to care ya know?

    The topic is poverty and (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    the govt - specifically the War on Poverty, not GWB.

    You act like each administration had to (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    adhere to some kind of game plan.

    The programs have never been cancelled (none / 0) (#71)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    nor even threatened.  You still have not addressed the question of why after multi-trillions and near enough 50 years there is still "poverty" in the US.

    That's easy (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:13:55 PM EST

    And persistent underfunding (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    coupled with deliberate regulatory strangulation.

    Not what the wiki says (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    The wiki says that welfare reform ended it all

    If you fall back on using (none / 0) (#79)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    wiki as a defense then there's not much to say.  However, I'll play along, use wiki and check out EBTs, and while you're at it some research into the question of why the Dept of Ag refuses to allow public access to where and for what products the EBT $s are spent.

    EBT fraud is rampant.


    Who knew? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    The Wiki = House of Lies

    While you're at it, do you support (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:34:13 PM EST
    federal subsidies to farmers?  School lunch program? Ethanol?

    "Kelo"=Fifth Amendment. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    takings clause (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    Do you want to repeal the whole Bill of Rights also, while you're at it, or just the Fifth Amendment?  The Takings Clause acknowledges that when we live under a government, the government has certain sovereign powers including the power of eminent domain -- taking private property for a compelling public purpose -- but when it exercises the power of eminent domain it must provide the individual with "just compensation."  You can definitely argue whether the Kelo case misconstrued the extent of the eminent domain power, but it really has nothing to do with any debate over the scope of the Commerce Clause.

    You're right (none / 0) (#56)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    I conflated asshat federal over reach. Totally my bad.

    The asserted overreach in Kelo (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    was by a local town government in Connecticut.  No federal overreach involved.  Your complaint, I guess, is that the federal Supreme Court did not interfere with this particular exercise of local power?  Is that it?  (Scratches head ...)

    kelo =5th (none / 0) (#44)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    My bad..all those asshat decisions run together sometimes.

    Heh (2.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    What you are advocating goes on all the time in third world countries.

    We're not a Third World Country.... but if we don't get a grip on spending and start making the Executive follow the law we will be.


    No (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:17:49 PM EST
    we're not a third world country but when we start doing mirroring their policy what do we become?

    Rule of law? ROTFLMAO! I just had that same debate with a conservative on facebook and laughed at him too. The GOP could care less about the "rule of law" after watching what they did to George W. Bush during his reckless 8 years: exactly nothing.


    What's this?? The Laff that destroyed Tokyo? (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    I ask again.

    What law are you willing to let the Right Wing ignore??

    Roe V Wade? Brown v Board of Education?

    Ga, it either works for all or it won't work for anyone.

    And no, we're not a 3rd WC, yet. But you start by having leaders who ignore the law because they want to keep their base happy and retain power.

    Tear up SocSec and you can fix it. Tear up the Constitution and you don't have a country.


    You are (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    talking about something completely different and yes there are states that have pretty much negated Roe v. Wade or are terrorizing women.

    So when George W. Bush violated the laws of the Geneva Convention what exactly did the GOP do? They did nothing about him violating it and torturing people. George W. Bush who doesn't want people given a trial? Puleeze, this is why the GOP screeching about the "rule of law" is a source of comedy.

    Well, if you are/were so concerned about the Constitution you should have never supported George W. Bush. Glen Greenwald is a great source on all this stuff and he has been just as tough on Obama as he was on Bush.


    Ga, your strawman is burning (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    The GC didn't apply and outside of one out of control prison, which the Army was in process of fixing before our "friends" helped the enemy by broadcasting it to the world, no one was tortured.

    And that includes waterboarding.

    Face it. When the President tolerates DHS saying they won't accept illegal immigrants from AZ he is flouting the law.

    But, just so I get this correct.

    Since you believe Bush violated the GC it is okay for Obama to violate the law.

    Okayyyyyyyyyyyy. Fine. I now know that in your world two wrongs make a right.



    So (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    conservatives just say that the "law doesn't apply" and then do whatever they want to do is NO different than what Obama is doing. The end result is that laws are not being followed.

    Yes, people were tortured. There is a case of a man, a Canadian, that was tortured and there are probably many others. Just because Obama didn't release the picture evidence of torture doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

    Where on earth did I say it was okay for Obama to do anything? You are flat making that up. My point is since people like you failed to hold Bush accountable Obama thinks he can get away with it too.


    Don't play word games (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    You immediately brought up what you think Bush did wrong as a defense against what I said about Obama.

    That is "two wrongs make one right" morality, or to be kinder, it is partisanship run wild.


    Brown v Board of Education? (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    Roe v Wade..

    Those are the laws the Right most wants to ignore?

    Thats some great company faux-social liberals are keeping these days..


    As usual Jondee (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    joins in with an unrelated comment to, he thinks, attack something or whatever.

    That's one theory (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    More compelling, I believe, is that "He who seeks to save himself will lose/die...he who would lose himself will find/save himself"  IMO, the central fear of loss of individual freedom (as a central principal) runs the risk of taking yourself down because it is, at heart, so self-limiting...too constricting for me as expansion, that is liberating, must needs come through exapansion through others. (Nicely put: The self-absorption with one's own liberty has a kind of self-defeat in it in its narrow focus on self.  Too limiting in a paradoxical way, IMO.)

    I've got some liberty for ya (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:48:37 PM EST
    Anarchist style :)  I may find my misspent youth yet

    BTD did people in america starve before FDR? (1.33 / 3) (#39)
    by redwolf on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:59:43 PM EST
    Was it impossible for the poor to receive healthcare before FRD?
    Where orphans left to die in the streets before FDR?

    Read a bit of history and you'll discover that american fed, clothed, and took care of it's own without problems before FRD got government into it.  Americans have always cared for one another.  Going through government groups like the TSA it's pretty clear the TSA enjoys treating me like crap.  They make it very clear that all they care about is their pay checks.

    Actually (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    the poor did not receive healthcare and usually died. That had nothing to do with FDR because there was no medicare or anything back then either.

    You really don't know how desperate the situation was do you?

    Orphans routinely died in the streets before we had any social service agencies. America DID not take care of it's own. People died of starvation all the time. I think you're shopping a fantasy. Read the grapes of wrath if you think people took care of each other. They did not.


    My great grandfather said that child (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    drunkeness was very common too, because many felt destitute.  It sounded to me a lot like the kids abandoned in the dumps in Mexico that huff gasoline to relieve their despair.  Children abusing alcohol regularly was a driving force for prohibition I was told.  He bought and paid for two ranches during prohibition though.  He was a moonshiner on the plains of Colorado.  It was obvious he was doing something special, but it took them forever to catch him.  He did a year in Canyon City for it too though when they finally did catch him.  During the depression though he fed anyone who darkened his doorstep if they worked on the ranches.  I was told it had a commune atmosphere.  And my great grandmother made beer, and you got free warm German beer with your meals....bleh

    "Grapes of Wrath" Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    This book illustrates Justice Scalia's theory that each state should be able to police its own borders against undocumented invaders.  

    Invaders from foreign lands (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    like Oklahoma?

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:27:31 PM EST
    Who on the TSA treats you like crap? (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:04:09 PM EST
    They are some of the same people you think will take care of each other. They did not just decide to be jerks because they work for the government. Chances are they were jerks in whatever job they had before. Government is not inherently evil. It is people, not a thing.

    Most TSA people treat me ok. Well, with (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    a couple exceptions:  (1) the man in San Diego who wouldn't let me sit down on a nearby straight chair to take off my books, and (2) the man in Phil. who kept referring to me as "the target."  

    "boots" otherwise I'd need (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    an e-reader.

    Oh, oculus (none / 0) (#132)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    Your comments are such a delightful source of light entertainment, as I try to determine what you intended to say.  I'd say I'm at about 80% in accuracy.  I wouldn't have gotten "boots".

    I'm 6'3", usually sport a beard, and have (none / 0) (#115)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:02:00 AM EST
    hair past my collar.

    The TSA loves me like Birchers love hippies. I get lots of attention, little of it wanted or warranted.

    If bad guys want to fool the TSA they just need to stop by a Men's Wearhouse and a barbershop. Then they could walk right through.


    Just before FDR.. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:52:38 AM EST
    ...Men were committing suicide so that there families could collect their life insurance to have something to live on.

    That's right, life insurance policies didn't always have suicide clauses, because no one saw things ever getting bad enough for that sort of thing to happen.

    Speaking of reading history as to whether America "... fed, clothed, and took care of it's (sic) own without problems...", turn to the section about the bonus army, and see how we treated the heroes of WWI.

    We couldn't take care of each other because nobody had anything.

    Wall Street got rich selling people stock in company A whose only asset was stock in company B, whose only asset was stock in company C, whose only asset was stock in company A.

    More and more money, much of it borrowed, kept flowing in and stocks kept going higher, but eventually the music stopped and when that house of cards tumbled, it took the economy out with it.

    Only the government was big enough and powerful enough to fix things, and only the government could put in place rules to prevent the same thing from being able to happen in the future.

    But those rules are in the way of the obscenely wealthy getting hideously obscenely wealthy as quickly as they think they're entitled to, so they've been buying congresscritters to gut those rules.

    I don't need to read history, my relatives lived it.


    Please don't flame me for this: Social security (none / 0) (#21)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    As a 27 year old who is up to my eyeballs in student debt, and barley in a new hard fought job.  I want them to cut social security ( for my generation and younger) so I can manage my own money. I also want to buy my own healcare in an open market. Does that make me a REP... No. It makes me smart. If the company I work for can force me into shity health care, and the government can force me into a shity retirement plan (SS). My golden years will be really shity...Don't get me wrong I hope the SC keeps the individual mandate. To many people my age are to selfish, naive, and dumb to buy major medical insurance. They need to be forced to, but at the same time. I want to invest my own money. Many countries prove that people can manage their own money better than the gov.

    No flaming, tho I disagree with all my fiber (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    The reality: Many, many people--the overwhelming majority of people--find that life doesn't role along on the straight road that they had planned out for themselves.  Certainly, plan...certainly, save.  In that plan, think about what happens if your family has a tragedy occur to you or someone else by way of unpreventable illness, horrendous paralyzing accident, life-threatening fight for a child, etc.  Think about your career & the many ramifications of what can happen...you & the boss cannot work together, you are laid off, you pick the wrong company, your own entrepreneurial skill is threatened in a very negative way, etc.  My gosh, there are so many possibilities. (Heck...right now, I'm looking toward the mountains from my Denver home...and, all of a sudden, the fire jumps near Boulder; more evacuations; more homes & lives destroyed.  More?

    Look I'm usually an optimist (can't stand it when whining takes over or if I fall prey to it.)  What to stay? Without sounding too snooty, all I can say from my heart: Think it through with your heart as well as your head...live your humanity...and realize that 37 and 47 and 57 etc bring lots of circumstances that you would never have imagined.  BTW, stock markets, bond markets, currencies undergo unpleasant changes too.


    It's because (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:15:02 PM EST
    the person is 27 that they can say these things. They think that nothing bad is ever going to happen to them and they'll be able to continue along the same trajectory for the rest of their life. They haven't lived long enough or been in the working world long enough to realize that reality imposes itself many a time on your fantasy plans.

    woops (none / 0) (#105)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:49:41 AM EST
    The thank you post was meant to be for the person above.

    Thank You (none / 0) (#103)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:44:56 AM EST
    Thank you for your post. That was very kind, and wise.  I agree a lot with what your saying, and I understand that life can go sidways quick. All we can do is try and hedge our bets, and keep trying. The last 4 years has been really hard on me, and a lot of people my age. I got tired of looking for a job and started a business, and that lead to this new job I have. I also did all kinds of things like work at c-stores, clean yards, basickly anything that would put some extra change in my pocket.

    On the stocks and bonds thing. Yes they do go down, but that is when it takes guts to keep buying DCA is a huge advantage to making a long term avg ROI. Also I will never put my money into a "fund" the forced pooling of money in funds for 401K is one of the greatest injustices ever invented. State subsidized  theft.


    The Entire Point... (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    ...of social security is to keep people from knowing better about a very unpredictable future.  If this past decade has taught us nothing, it's that your wealth can decline by 50% in a couple weeks regardless of how well you plan.

    Most people's largest assets, their house and investments plummeted which is fine for us, but let's assume you are at an age or have some sort of medical illness/injury in which you can not generate income.  You are at the mercy of the very crooks that already took half your life's work in a couple weeks.

    I think your issue isn't with social security, it's with the a-holes who want to chop and dice it and change it from a guarantee to a maybe.  Once it becomes a maybe, then it's not a hard sell to get rid of it.

    Social Security is the ultimate hedge against any bad bets made in life.  No matter how dumb you were with your money, no matter what sort of financial unrest occurs, no matter what kind of illness/injury happens, you will always have an income, not maybe what you are accustomed to, but enough to keep you off the streets starving to death at 80 or worse, at 40 with Parkinson's.

    Hedges do not get any better than that.  So for me at 40, I would rather pay in and get little back then to put everything in my own hands.  I minored in finance, certainly not my specialty, but I am extremely good with my money.  But I never forget, that there are minds out there far superior to mind who work tirelessly to get their hands on mine.  I like knowing that there will be a small sliver of guaranteed funds if one of those brilliant, yet evil, minds succeeds.  And for the record, they got a nice chunk of my home equity recently.  I can't say who, but I know it's worth a hell of a lot less than 8 years ago.  I also know, that sans a crystal ball, I was powerless to stop it.

    That being said, my financial planning does not included Social Security.  I had better be living the life, if not better, then I am accustomed to when I retire which will be before 65.  That is the plan I am spending my life achieving, I hope to god I never have to live off SS, but to me, it's comforting knowing that a wrench in my plan will not leave me homeless begging for change so I can eat.


    Bravo! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    If you (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:12:37 PM EST
    think buying your own health care is so great you really haven't lived much of a live. I've done it and I will tell you it's no great shakes paying 10K a year for something that only pays out after you spend 5K in medical expenses.

    The fact of the matter is social security is an INSURANCE program it is not an INVESTMENT. If you live to old age then you can collect much like life insurance. Can you imagine what would have happened to all the elderly people in this country when the stock market collapsed back in '08 if there was no social security?


    There isn't an investment for you to make (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    though dear that leads to a retirement.  Not as the economy exists today.  It must be fixed before I can even get anywhere with making investments for my own retirement.  One of our friends had a meltdown the other day.  He is some kind of physiopsychologist, something like that.  But he was upset because his retirement plan is making such a poor show of it, no matter what he puts into it.  He is angry because he says that he didn't go to school to be an investment planner, how is supposed to get to a retirement the way things are?  He didn't study this!  I told him I didn't think there was a retirement for him in the derivative casino.

    Maybe you could build a business that would have intrinsic worth, but the pittance collected in Soc Sec taxes doesn't add up to much on a daily basis, would you really even miss it?

    Also, the Social Security system provides disability funds.  I don't know if my disabled son will be able to hold a job.  He may be on disability his whole life.  Or he can sleep on the sidewalk in front of your house I guess when I'm dead and gone.

    They also pay suvivor benefits to children's families or caretakers when a parent or both parents have died, if those parents were ever part of the work force.  Having the bread winner cut out of your family is devastating, but the Social Security benefit saw many an orphan through to adulthood.  Everyone is human, it is very hard for most people to have the same maternal/paternal feelings for children that are not DNA related.  It isn't impossible, but it is special if you are lucky enough to have it happen to you once you have lost a parent as a child or both.  At least you can be fed and clothed and there is no excuse for you not being fed and clothed.


    Managing your own money... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    In 1929 my 4 grandparents, who were neither stupid nor lazy, were managing their own money, as were a lot of other folks.

    My maternal grandfather, in fact, had just begun expanding his dairy business.

    Other than that, their investments were basically a house to live in and a savings account at the local bank, like most everybody else in those days.

    All of a sudden, through no fault of their own (but with plenty of blame to go around on Wall Street--read Galbraith's book on the crash), the entire economy disappeared out from under them.

    Even very conservative banks went under because people who had borrowed from them for mortgages and such were suddenly unemployed with no hope of finding new work.

    So a few depositors managed to withdraw what actual cash the banks had on hand and the rest were just SOL.  None of that meddlesome government FDIC at the time to pain the souls of the rugged individualists.

    So whether your bank account evaporated wasn't due to your skill and wisdom in picking the right bank nearly as much as it was your geographic location and the luck of the draw.

    Managing your own money won't save you when the value of everything suddenly plummets.

    By the way, Social Security really isn't a retirement program, it's death insurance.

    If you don't die when you're supposed to, it pays off.


    Today's rugged individualist (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    Has not one clue that everything is rigged right now.  And today's rugged individualist hasn't ever seen hungry parentless ten year olds living on the streets, they can't even fathom such things or that they once existed here in the United States, because they have always lived under the New Deal.  They think they are only asking to go camping, and camping was always great.

    That's all too true. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:34:53 PM EST
    I daresay that damned few of them have ever read John Steinbeck's classic Depression-era novel The Grapes of Wrath (or even seen the acclaimed 1940 film), which told the very real story of one-plus million impoverished Americans who were forced to flee famine in the drought-stricken Southern plains of the mid-1930s, heading west to California on literally nothing more than hope and prayer.

    Really? (none / 0) (#106)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:53:08 AM EST
    This is why people think that we the left are nut jobs. I make a simple point that for people under 30 we should role back social security because other countries prove that if given the money the vast majority of people will out perform the state investment fund, and the response is an FDIC good argument. Yes the FDIC is awsome.  Like all forms of insurance.

    "other countries" (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by sj on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    other countries prove that if given the money the vast majority of people will out perform the state investment fund
    Care to name them?  

    And another "we the left" commenter. Oy.  I just took a look at your other comments.  I try (though often fail) not to judge a person based on a single comment.  But when you try to include yourself in "the left", well... it is to laugh.


    Silly (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    because other countries prove that if given the money the vast majority of people will out perform the state investment fund

    While I highly doubt this, you are comparing apples to oranges.  The individual uses far more risky investments then the state.  So while gains may appear greater, when sh1t happens the foolishness of the individual is apparent.  It just happened.

    But that has nothing to do with Social Security.  Social Security isn't some big investment fund run by governmental investors.  You and I pay the recipients of the Social Security today, when we retire, the working class pays us our benefits. And while there is some surplus, the majority of funds aren't available for investing as you suggest.


    No, that simply makes you ... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:00:36 PM EST
    "As a 27 year old who is up to my eyeballs in student debt, and barley in a new hard fought job.  I want them to cut social security ( for my generation and younger) so I can manage my own money. I also want to buy my own healcare in an open market. Does that make me a REP... No. It makes me smart."

    ... inexperienced. Please let us know how you feel 25 to 30 years from now, when you're a little more seasoned and have compiled some real life's experiences.

    You know, I was once a healthy and fit 20-something, too -- a former D-1 college baseball player, as a matter of fact -- and I considered myself on top of the world.

    By age 29, I was already divorced.

    By age 37, I was a remarried father of two young children, and fighting my second round with Hodgkin's Disease.

    At age 47, I was undergoing a lengthy round of chemo and radiation to deal with melanoma, while receiving notice that my health insurance was being cancelled because I was now considered too high-risk.

    Ever heard the old saying, "The best-laid plans of mice and men ..."?

    You know, life has a way of throwing you some pretty unpredictable curveballs, and as you grow older, you'll no doubt adjust your frame of reference to reflect your own personal experiences, which will include having to field a few of them.

    A lot of us here have been around the block a few times, and to paraphrase Chief Joseph of the Nez Perces, we have our experiences with men of two faces and two tongues. You should learn to listen more closely to others when they relate that experience, and not be so quick to assume that you already know it all. Because believe me, you don't.

    And finally, please, PLEASE don't be so impetuous that you'd readily be talked into something that may have profound long-term consequences for your future well-being -- not all of them good.

    For over three-quarters of a century, Social Security has been an effective part of the greater social compact we have with one another, and its worked. Medicare has worked effectively since 1965. Both have done wonders in keeping many older adults out of poverty as they aged and retired.

    So, don't let some fast-talking Wall Street carnival barkers con you into thinking that they're your friends, and will help you manage your money for your retirement, because trust me, they're in it for the money, and they do not have your best interests at heart.

    Because if you fall for the self-serving entreaties of that man with two faces and two tongues, the odds are better than even that you'll probably live a long enough time to very deeply and bitterly regret it.



    the social bond (1.00 / 3) (#108)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:00:00 AM EST
    I really dislike condescending old people. My generation is dying under student debt that can't be bankrupted, because of the student loan crisis our parents caused, We are at extreme risk of poverty, and way underemployed, and we have to be preached at because yall need our cash to keep your over inflated benifites. People are taking out 3 dollars for every dollar they put in. This is nuts. We pay excise taxes, income tax, property tax, captial gains. Why should we have to put in 4-6% of our checks extra. I would be willing to even say force employers to pay employment tax, but let people keep their money. We are dying down hear, but all everyone wants to talk about is that we are just to young. We don't know that hard way of the world. That sir is BS

    Wow..."condescending old people" (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    Really?  That's how you're going to handle this?

    So, after all that "please don't flame me" stuff, it now comes out that whatever burdens under which you are suffering are all our fault.  But while you are correct that there is a problem with massive student loan debt, I have no idea how that is our fault.  

    But, hey, I'd be angry too, if I had gone into debt to get a college degree and still didn't know how to spell or properly construct a sentence.  Or learned anything about monetary policy, or how Social Security works.  Seems like you might want to do less complaining until you can educate yourself and communicate in something other than right-wing talking points, because as it stands, you're making all of us old people feel sorry for whatever sacrifices your parents made in your quest for a college education if this is the best you can do with it.

    Can you define what "over inflated benifites" (sic) are?  I'm thinking not.  That's just something you heard, probably from someone who either isn't collecting, or has significant other resources to supplement their monthly SS check.

    And tell us old people something else: suppose you do have to rely on your own investments, and one day, just as you are about to retire, or maybe somewhere 5 or 10 years into retirement, your savings take a nose-dive and you can't afford to live on what you have left.  Who bails you out?  Who pays your bills?  Your children?  Do you change your tune and start singing some sad song about how hard you worked and how you did all the right things and through no fault of your own, you're broke, and now Uncle Sam needs to come to your rescue?

    I'm sure.

    Life is hard.  And it gets harder.  As the mother of a 26 year old and a 29 year old, I know how hard it is for young people to get somewhere.  I see how hard they work for what they have.  I know how hard my husband and I worked, how much we sacrificed, for our girls to get the foundation that has made them who they are.  

    If there is one thing your comment has done for me, it is to remind me how grateful I am that our daughters are not the selfish and ungrateful piece of work you have presented yourself as being.

    So, thanks for that.


    Add Links to Your Ridiculous Claims... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:39:44 PM EST
    ...or don't make them.  3 dollars for every 1, this might be why your up to your eye balls in debt.  Debt I did not soak you with, debt you willingly took out and now you are suffering the consequences of your decisions and tossing blame at others.  

    In case that subtle point was missed, I highly doubt that debt was in your plan, but there it is, ditto for the job situation and the rest of it.  None of your choosing nor do you have the control over it you should have.  Sh1t happens.

    I am not old and I agree about Donald, half his post are condescending, the other half are reading people the riot act about their condescension.  He like to scold us with long winded bragging disguised as purposeful.

    I, unlike Donald, don't need life experiences to know that even at 18, I like the idea of Social Security.  You don't, and I could not agree more that you should be able to opt out.  Ditto for Medicare.  So fight for your right to opt out, don't fight to kill a program millions of others support.

    It's clear you don't know what you are talking about in terms of facts.  You want out, to me that's enough without the rest, I could care less why you want out, just keep you GD mitts off a program I like just because you don't.


    How did (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:10:07 AM EST
    your parents create a "student loan crisis". The problem as i understand it from some of my friends in the university system is that this whole corporate welfare nobody should pay taxes junk that conservatives have been shopping has pretty much cost people like you a lot of money since the tax payers aren't funding the colleges like they used to when i was in school. Now down here in GA it's all about freebies for old people who don't pay school taxes and dont pay this tax or that tax. I personally think they should pay taxes just like everyone else and that would help PEOPLE LIKE YOU A LOT.

    Look, when I got out of college UE was 10% in SC. Everybody was desperate for jobs and wages had collapsed back to levels of the 60's but no such collapse for the costs of living though. I understand where you are coming from and I used to think the same way but then you get older and you see things differently. It is hard being young but don't think that everybody older than you had it easier than you do.


    oy (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by CST on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    You are missing the forest for the trees my friend.

    If you want to invest in your own retirement, do so, don't fight the % that is being taken care of, fight for the extra % you want to add to it.

    If the market crashes again the year before you plan on retiring, you'll be glad you had a diverse set of funds.  I'm also 27, who knows what the market is going to be like at 67.  And say they do eliminate social security - what happens to the people who make bad investments?  Screw em?  They have nothing to live on as seniors?

    That's nice that you have faith in yourself to make good bets, but you have to realize not everyone is that smart.  But if you take away social security, that's for everyone, and there's nothing left for the people who aren't good at gambling.


    You may want to rethink this (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    For your younger up and coming colleagues.

    Congress has just reached a deal on student loans.  Hope they aren't planning on going to graduate school and counting on federal subsidized loans - those are bye-bye.  

    And while they kept the 3.4% interest rate on federal loans, they will now be due upon graduation - no 6 month grace period.

    Even as Congress moves to prevent undergraduate student loan rates from doubling, lawmakers have decided to eliminate two federal subsidies that will increase the cost of higher education.

    One would hit the same college students who are benefiting from the interest rate freeze. Though their rates will be only 3.4 percent, they will be responsible for paying that interest as soon as they throw their graduation caps in the air -- a change that is expected to cost them more than $2 billion.

    Meanwhile, students hoping to earn the advanced degrees that have become mandatory for many white-collar jobs will no longer be eligible for federally subsidized loans. That means graduate students are facing an $18 billion increase in interest rate payments over the next decade, about three times the amount at stake in the debate over undergrad interest rates.

    Both measures will take effect Sunday.

    Do you think people your age and younger are really going to voluntarily save for retirement?


    Flames... (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:34:25 PM EST
    ...since you have since flamed out, I would like to make a point here.  

    You complain of crushing debt and having issues finding a job in one breathe, but in the very next you seem to think that's not really your fault, and that left to your own devises, the next part of your life will be vastly different.

    You didn't work through college and took out a lot of debt.  You mentioned your major in another post, and communications isn't exactly a degree in which one had to devote all of their time.  Never mind that communication in some of your posts surely indicates you didn't like class much, but I digress.  You could have worked, left college with no debt or rather manageable debt.  Lots of people do it, myself included.

    In as much as I don't care, it's odd that someone who has crushing debt with a new job thinks he is fiscally responsible enough to finance his own future.  Especially when you clearly think it's not your fault, that others are responsible for this dire situation.

    What makes you think this won't happen when you are 60 ?  Clearly you aren't at fault for you current predicament, but what makes you think life is any different in the future ?  That miraculously those forces keeping you down now will disappear.

    I don't know you, but I know a communications major should not graduate college with crushing debt.  I also know that's a far better indicator of your financial abilities then silly claims you keep making about performance.

    You actually prove why social Security is a necessity, you think you are smart enough to handle the responsibility to your future, when, according to you, you are barely above water now.  


    Janice Rogers Brown says her hands (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    are tied by stare decisis.  Good.  Surprising she doesn't cite Kelo.

    I just listened to Hitler's speech to the (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    Reichstag in which he declared war on the U.S.  Some of this sounds quite familiar in light of today's rhetoric in the U.S.:

    Roosevelt comes from a rich family and belongs to the class whose path is smoothed in the Democracy. I am the only child of a small, poor family and had to fight my way by work and industry.
    When the Great War came, Roosevelt occupied a position where he got to know only its pleasant consequences enjoyed by those who do business while others bleed. I was only one of those who carry out orders, as an ordinary soldier, and naturally returned from the war just as poor as I was in autumn of 1914. I shared the fate of millions, and Franklin Roosevelt only the fate of the so-called upper ten thousand.


    Yet there is something in common between us. Roosevelt took over a State in a very poor economic condition, and I took over a Reich faced with complete ruin, also thanks to Democracy. In the U.S.A. there were 13 million unemployed, and in Germany 7,000,000 part-time workers. The finances of both States were in a bad way, and ordinary economic life could hardly be maintained. A development then started in the U.S.A. and in the German Reich, which will make it easy for posterity to pass a verdict on the correctness of the theories.
    While an unprecedented revival of economic life, culture and art took place in Germany under National Socialistic leadership within the space of a few years; President Roosevelt did not succeed in bringing about even the slightest improvements in his own country. And yet this work must have been much easier in the U.S.A. where there lived scarcely fifteen people on a square kilometre, as against 140 in Germany.
    If such a country does not succeed in assuring economic prosperity, this must be a result either of the bad faith of its leaders in power, or of a total inefficiency on the part of the leading men. In scarcely five years, economic problems had been solved in Germany and unemployment had been overcome. During the same period, President Roosevelt had increased the State Debt of his country to an enormous extent, the decreased value of the dollar, had brought about a further disintegration of economic life, without diminishing the unemployment figures.
    All this is not surprising if one bears in mind that the men he had called to support him, or rather, the men who had called him, belonged to the Jewish element, whose interests are all for disintegration and never for order. While speculation was being fought in National Socialist Germany, it thrived astoundingly under the Roosevelt regime.
    Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was all-wrong, It was actually the biggest failure ever experienced by one man. There can be no doubt that a continuation of this economic policy would have undone this President in peace time, in spite of all his dialectical skill.

    Hitler's speech

    Wow, what a ripoff (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    To think, we could have had facism instead of insured savings accounts!

    Some Reichs have all the luck.


    Dude, fascim is what we have. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:19:22 AM EST
    We have the alliance of state and corporate power in a system where the state is more responsive to and representative of corporations than of its people. That IS fascism.

    I Know, What's the Point... (none / 0) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    ...you can never have the same view as a really bad guy about one person ?

    I hear Pol Pot though Nixon was a real son-of-b1tch, that's make me and Pol Pot one in the same I guess.


    Wow (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    Sounds exactly like what the conservatives are saying these days.

    That is just flat out wrong (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    I wish (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 07:58:54 PM EST
    it was WRONG. Conservatives are saying a lot of these same things these days.

    If you are even attempting (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    to frame Hilter's words into the view of conservatives then you really need to re-study Germany's history.  To take Hilter's critic of Roosevelt and make the leap you are attempt is, again, flat wrong.

    Consider the content, not the source. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    Republicans are in fact making a lot of eerily similar statements, ignorant of philosopher George Santanaya's wisdom about history's lessons.

    That said, I shy away from offering political analogies to Germany's National Socialist experience, for the very reason your reactive posts exemplify.

    Quite understandably, people will tend to immediately and roundly reject such analogies on pure gut instinct, often at the very moment they hear or read the words "Hitler" and "Nazi."

    More often than not, such analogies result in a truly repulsive comparison, which ultimately serves only to cheapen the very real horrors experienced by the untold millions of people who suffered and died under Nazi rule.



    Actually (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    I thought the tone of the first part sounded like the Democrats - "Romney was born wealthy and never had to suffer...yada, yada, yada...Obama had a divorced mother who was on food stamps /  was a community organizer / for the people / ...yada, yada, yada...."

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:55:14 AM EST
    talking personal. I'm talking policy. The critique of the New Deal sounds like something right out of the GOP playbook circa 2012.

    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:08:13 AM EST
    With the rest of the speech - it absolutely sounds like the Republican Party of 2012.  

    But it immediately struck me how much the first part sounded like the tone of the Democratic Party this year as well - trying to play off the fact that Romney was born rich (as if Obama was born to poor people, when in fact, he was very much middle class and lived a middle to upper middle class his entire life).

    It's a great tool to use - "class warfare" is what some call it - politicans always try to use it.  "Look, Candidate X is out of touch with us because he's rich / white / male / gay / double-jointed /  a circus clown  - whatever.  But I'm the candidate who's better because I'm not any of those things."


    It's also (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:12:24 AM EST
    the same thing Bush said about Kerry.

    Sure (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    Like I said - they all try it.

    It's just that since it is being beaten to death this year (already), that's what immediately struck me about the similarities.


    Yikes! (none / 0) (#73)
    by lobo58 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    Folks, there is no need to get nutty. It's a simple thing and something we should all support: Is this Constitutional or is it not? Really, right or left, we should all back the Constitution uber alles. If anyone, again Right or Left, can undermine our freedoms, we are screwed.

    BCS is dead! (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    The open thread is full. So, I am putting this here. CBS News just told me that college presidents have voted to change to a football play-off system.

    What say ye, BTD?