“What morons!!! What part of "shall not be questioned" can you not understand? That is the language in the Amendment. It means that the debt shall not be disputed. It does NOT mean the repayment is guaranteed.”
BlackJeremiah on Jun 29, 2011 at 09:00:09
“The validity shall not be questioned. That means we don't take actions to place the country in default.”
“War doesn't boost economies. Spending on wars does. So, what that should tell you is that FDR's plans were not big enough. It took some really serious spending (of World War magnitude) to bring an end to the depression.”
“You can't blame the Tea Party. The Tea Party was against TARP. TARP injected a huge cash cushion into failing institutions, and this cushion is exactly the reason why mortgage modification is not occurring on the scale you would hope. Dying institutions in need of cash will be more inclined to haggle. TARP prevented any urgency to haggle.”
“Nobody should get excited. BTW, it's not just Texas and South Carolina which passed such sovereignty resolutions. You can add to that list: Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio and Georgia. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/10th-amendment-resolutions/
Quite a mix, eh? Does anyone think they all want slavery or want to trod on human rights? I hope not. What seems apparent is the our central government is too intrusive, too broad and too incapable of trying to establish policies from a national regime which square evenly well with the diverse people in the diverse regions of this large piece of dirt we call "the United States."
Is it really so crazy to want to leave the party when it's not fun anymore? I don't think so. Is anyone a fan of forced marriage? If the states want out, let them out. Just draft up a decent and fair contract to both sides, so they can part ways on good terms.
The USSR busted up, and in many places, I bet the people there are happier for it. Surely, nobody thinks secession in the USSR had anything to do with slavery. So, why even think secession and slavery go hand in hand? They don't, except for the only example in our nation's history where this occurred. Certainly, people can want to secede for different reasons that are no so impure.”
Emlyn on Dec 20, 2010 at 20:06:34
“I am beginning to think that my home state of California should leave the union. Keep our money at home. A lot of states would go downhill because of less tax money.”
redd35 on Dec 20, 2010 at 16:51:40
“All that and you said nothing. here we are discussing secession and finding validity and blaming government, when being inhumane and rich was the real reason.”
RDenning on Dec 20, 2010 at 16:48:24
“The resolution in Indiana has not passed. Article 3 provides, "That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed." The interesting part is the clause, "or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed." So they don't want federal intrusion but they do want federal money. This is pretty typical of the irresponsible politics of Republicans and Democrats. You want the good stuff without paying any price.”
“That's a punt on second down. All those "goodies" for the working class that could not be passed up will become debt owed by them, because tax breaks to the rich result in less revenues. We already know the rich will not be paying the debt because it hasn't happened yet, and the bulk of tax breaks goes to them. So, consider it a job well-done that you so graciously let workers borrow when they can't afford more credit. How generous.”
hellinahandcart on Dec 14, 2010 at 18:14:35
“Nary have I read such a profound statement on these threads:
"All those "goodies" for the working class that could not be passed up will become debt owed by them...."
“Nope. They will never let the consumer win. I mean, come on, do you really think the legislation makes them provide additional coverage and benefits for free? Jeez!!!!
All the coverage mandates will do is force them to sell a more expensive product. This will displace buyers, who could otherwise buy Pintos but who would be living in a society where only Cadillacs are available.
Please explain how people will get more coverage at no additional cost? Your article implies that.”
“Actually, the opposite of judicial activism is judicial restraint - the judge's taking the law as it is and not as he wishes it was. Read the Constitution. Nowhere is Congress authorized to regulate the intrastate business of insurance. For those who rely on the "general Welfare" clause for support of such power, think about why our Constitution would be written to maintain many states, each with their own laws, made by their own people, only to allow a central government to thwart local laws and customs by a sentence that allowed them to do whatever it is the central government thinks is in the "general Welfare." No way.
Be careful what you "want" the Constitution to say. You just might get it. Pack Congress and the courts full of ultra-conservatives, and you might get a central government deciding its in the "general Welfare" to prohibit homosexuality. It's in the "general Welfare" to prohibit divorce. It's in the "general Welfare" to prohibit the use of contraceptives.
Do you really want your central government to have this sort of power? Read the Constitution. Its purpose was to make sure that this nation's people were not under the thumbs of monarchs and aristocracies.
That the Virgina judge rule the law Unconstitutional is not surprising in the least. We need more judges who will actually follow the law and rule in favor the rights of people and not the power of government.”
“Eh???? If embarrassment is all this creates, it's good enough for me. Just consider it payback for TSA's groping into the people's privacy. Payback can be hell..... Cheers!”
Leadsled on Nov 29, 2010 at 17:14:05
“The TSA only "gropes" if you either a. won't submit to a rather straightforward scan or b. insist on trying to fly, which you have no obligation to do, despite not being willing to have the scan. Just don't fly or have the scan.
Moreover, embarrassment in diplomacy is kinda a big deal. Creating a situation where people feel free to give candid and confidential advice is also necessary for basically every form of decisionmaking.”
“Who cares what the Pope thinks? He is built of flesh, bone and hypocrisy like every other person in the world. Why should his opinion be touted as some superior dictate? What he should do is keep his nose out of people's personal affairs and choices. "The Pope Speaks on Condoms." What a joke.”
“If you did some research, I bet you could make more than one argument. It is not complicated at all. Start with Article 1, Section 8. Read commentary contained in the Federalist Papers (which are pretty darn good, considering Madison's commentary is coming from the most prominent actual author of the Constitution). It is a good point in time for all Americans to stop making knee-jerk comments about the Constitution and actually research it, learn it, understand it, and know why it was drafted in the manner it was.”
“Davis, you'll have to do some digging of your own to answer the question you pose. Suffice it to say that if you are looking for political arguments pro or con the mandate, you can get plenty of logical, but uninformed, responses. When you ask on what grounds does Congress have Constitutional authority, you can't rely on modern punditry and need to do some research. The short version is that the states desired to form a limited, national government after having procured independence from Britain. They wanted to do this to effectuate issues that just could not be accomplished at a state level. So, they formed a compact with each other, agreeing to participate in a limited, national government which would deal with national issues that could NOT be effectively addressed locally. The military, war, treaties, open trade among the states, etc. These were the things which absolutely would require all states to form a compact, and it was formed with these limited purposes. Things like welfare policy, education and such were not matters conferred to the authority of the national government. These were left to the states because they could be dealt with at the state levels. New Yorkers really were not too concerned with what Virginians wanted to do about their education system and welfare programs, and vice versa. Check Art. I, Sec. 8, and then, you will have to do your own digging. The Federalist Papers are useful.”
“I wonder how many people this judge put away in prison for drug offenses. How can a person in his position be using cocaine the night before and come in to work the next morning and send someone away to prison for using cocaine?”
“It's not a one-sided issue. Your view has problems as does Scalia's. Think about it. You say the Constitution has moved more to democracy. Well, first, we are a Republic. You then say, as things are today, the rights of people cannot be trampled by the states. Yet, as written, the Constitutional framework would mean that states could decide whether to allow marijuana use, gay marriage, etc. You know, these things that some people would consider "rights." Yet, the feds trounce on those rights all the time.
Finally, you suggest the 17th fixed all the corruption. From what planet are you catching up on your news? Corruption abounds and is as great as ever. Surely, there are problems meant to be fixed by the 17th, and perhaps they were to some extent. Yet, if you really put on your thinking hat, you will see that the problem you describe simply changed venues. No good came out of it, except for a weakened Republic. And no, Constitutional amendments are not always right. I can think of one which we repealed. You know the one, right?”
blackraisin on Nov 17, 2010 at 10:36:50
“Agreed. And anyone who thinks a corporation couldn't buy a Senate seat now is blind.”
The fact is that in the absence of demand, you can reduce taxes to zero on business-owners, and they will not hire anybody. Why would they? If all I can sell is 300 widgets, why would I produce 500 after getting a tax break? I can't sell the other 200 widgets. So, no, tax breaks to the supply side do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs.”
“Yes. So, let's look at a cross-section of working Americans. What percentage had $100,000 sitting around to put in the S&P or Nasdaq? I know many do, but that would be in terms of real numbers. When you look at this group as a percentage of the populace, the percentage is quite small. So, your example proves the point. He is pro-big business, pro-wealth concentration, and anti-working class.”
eden4barack08 on Nov 4, 2010 at 13:20:32
“My example proves he's pro-business, it does NOT prove he's "anti-working class".
As the President of the largest capitalist nation in the world, there's no way he could help the working class without saving the business class that was collapsing before our eyes.
the tragedy lays in the fact that after saving them, instead of being grateful to the nation that saved them by hiring and lending, they're actually sitting on trillions of dollars just to spite the President, because they prefer Republican deregulators to run the government for them. And that's what they got right now with Speaker Boehner.”
thehardertheycome on Nov 4, 2010 at 12:54:17
“You say he is pro business and about half the posters say that he is anti business. Business says he is anti business. It seems no matter which way you slice it, he can't win.”
“Stop following the rhetoric and follow the money. There is big, big money coming out of the administration, and these pesky, little groups get very, very little of it. Think BIG business. Stop thinking about communists and reactionaries.”
“I wish the right and left of the working class would align against both parties and all of DC politics. It's a shame they can't. But it does seem they might be learning that all politics are destructive, and the more centralized the power, the greater the concentration of wealth.”
“Obama and team are already great friends with big business. This article should be more accurately titled, "White House to Small Business: Can't We be Friends?" Of course, the answer is "no." The game in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, is a zero-sum strategy of inching away at the working class to the benefit of the big players.”
verycold on Nov 4, 2010 at 11:36:36
“I agree that there needs to be a distinction between international corporations (BIG BUSINESS) and small business. They are NOT the same, nor are they treated the same. True some small businesses one day end up being a Home Depot, but very few. Obama completely ignored small business which also includes the micro businesses.”
indamiddle on Nov 4, 2010 at 11:29:32
“Like I said it is not Obama who is against Big business..It is the Progressives who believe he should be.....So where do they think they will get jobs...Government jobs of course!!”
“In response to the many comments about not voting out of apathy. There is nothing wrong with apathy, especially when the politicians give you every reason to be apathetic. If anyone here really thinks votes count, you need to spend two weeks tagging along with one of the DC bunch. You will see who they represent. Hint: not you.
Not voting is okay, IMO, because your vote is actually meaningless. (Although I did vote). But really, don't the last 2 elections (this one included) show you what you need to know? To heck with Washington! They can't run anything for the people. They are too corrupt.
There is something to this nullification idea. The liberals have made good use of it, such as ignoring federal drug laws to allow local medicinal use. Nullification works. There is proof it does, and I just gave an example.
Pretty soon, the people will not count on voting in DC elections and just start ignoring anything that comes of of DC. When enough people nullify, there is not a dang thing the DC politicians can do about it. THAT is when the people will win.”
alexeiz on Nov 2, 2010 at 14:00:32
“Well not voting today is actually voting - for Republicans. That's the sad truth. I'm angry with democrats, but not very much - I didn't expect much from them. I still will vote for them - I don't see any other rational choice.
Letting apathy rule you is suicide for the soul.”
madasamarchare on Nov 2, 2010 at 13:46:36
“Is your comment in defense of apathy?
I honestly don't know, because I didn't care enough about it to read it.
Irony runs deep around here...”
beatrix on Nov 2, 2010 at 13:20:47
“Well, except when you don't vote-- you have absolutely no say and no right to have a say in what your government is doing . . . so for those who choose to away from the ballot box today, just plan on putting up and shutting up.”
GaiasChild on Nov 2, 2010 at 13:07:52
“nothing wrong with apathy except that it is the dullest possible way to live, to perceive, to choose, to be.”
“What I don't get is why anyone would flag this comment as abusive. It's actually the truth, and even if you disagree, it's a valid opinion. Washington politics is pointless. If the last election and this election, combined, don't prove it, nothing will.”
Lucy1886 on Nov 2, 2010 at 12:48:31
“Sometimes people will put an abusive flag on something that is not abusive, just because they don't agree with it. That is, of course, an "abuse" of the "abuse flag"...and is, itself, "abusive". But there are a lot of quirky people out there........”
“Voting for the dems and signing a "Probation" petition to advise them they will lose next time is a bad strategy. The hard truth is that lobbyists work full time and their rewards and sanctions are what get politicians moving. The people do not. The only way is to vote them out. The problem is that in voting them out, the person you get will not be who you want, either.
To sum it up, you can keep voting for these people and telling them how frustrated you are with them at the same time, but they will not listen. The lobby money is too strong.”
Gib on Nov 2, 2010 at 16:29:41
“What was that about rearranging the chairs on the Titanic? The country is going down, and the wealthy have taken control of all the lifeboats.”