US politics

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Great cartoon. Just FYI I'm originally from NC. Most of my extended family is still around Winston-Salem.

[Annelise]

As I predicted, the GOP is already preparing to make a big fuss about all of the Bush tax cuts.

They're going to frame it as the largest tax increase ever, or something like that.

Heh, Rove about has to say that. I'll wait and see what elected Republicans do with it.

The votes for the partial will still be there in any case.

[Annelise]

Either way, it's still all talk at this point. It's not like they've never discussed this before.

This is true, but AARP is evidently taking it seriously. My Dad forwarded me this email today:

I wanted to make sure you saw this message. The president's deficit commission met yesterday to develop recommendations for fixing the federal deficit, and Social Security is still a prime target for cuts.

Social Security didn't cause the deficit, so it shouldn't be cut to fix it. It's up to us to keep the pressure on Congress and protect our hard earned retirement benefits – but we need your help.

Click here to tell Congress and President Obama: don't cut Social Security to fix the deficit.

Thank you for your support on this critical issue.

[DanteGabriel]

Activist judge (in the Boston liberalopolis no less!) declares part of Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional... on the grounds of states' rights.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.

By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal

government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.

And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/federal-judge-rules-part-of-doma-unconstitutional.php

Conservative headsplodey?

[Swordfish]

This is true, but AARP is evidently taking it seriously. My Dad forwarded me this email today:

Well, again, it's not the first time the AARP has sent out this kind of stuff to it's members.

'All of this has happened before, and this will all happen again.'

[Shryke]

Well, again, it's not the first time the AARP has sent out this kind of stuff to it's members.

'All of this has happened before, and this will all happen again.'

We need to lock the doors of Country Kitchen Buffet and take down the AARP.

[BloodRider]

We need to lock the doors of Country Kitchen Buffet and take down the AARP.

Do not close the Hobble n Gobble. Its were I take the kids to get positive affirmations.

[RAddichio]

Humungus indeed the U.S. Treasury Department on June 1st 2010 quoted the U.S. National Debt as being $13 trillion. All Western european 'democracies' have this serious problem, National debt as at least 50%+ of GDP. Why so much debt?, because money is the psychic means of enslaving people, and someone has made Government their bitch.

National debt is the western version of a psychic disease, while other parts of the world have more obvious corrupt practices, we have this.

We still live in the age of the atomised (false) individual, dating back to Descartes, but it's really a strategy within the animal world.

In the case of the US, agree w/you about the bitch and the current administration is the enabler through an insane tax policy, anti-business environment, expansion of gov, all of which is damaging a once great country.

[BloodRider]

Maybe Alberta, CA does have a leeeetle more in common with the Right Wingers. WTF, Alberta. That better be one export you do not send to us.

[RAddichio]

I don't see how term limits make Congress somehow more responsive and ethical. Either way they need money and support to win election.

Also, do you really think any congressperson is going to vote to give up his/her own job?

With term limits the member at some point stops focusing solely on the next re-election and instead has the courage to vote for those measures that are really in the best interest of the country, rather than only his/her self-interest in an upcoming election. It frees them after a few terms to make the hard decisions for the greater good because their own self interest is no longer on the radar screen.

A politician will promise to enact term limits if enough pressure is applied by voters. If they break the promise, they're voted off the congressional island. :D

[Andriy Czarchenko]

With term limits the member at some point stops focusing solely on the next re-election and instead has the courage to vote for those measures that are really in the best interest of the country, rather than only his/her self-interest in an upcoming election. It frees them after a few terms to make the hard decisions for the greater good because their own self interest is no longer on the radar screen.

A politician will promise to enact term limits if enough pressure is applied by voters. If they break the promise, they're voted off the congressional island. :D

More likely that they´ll vote for the interests of what they wanna lobby for immediately after. Term limits are a disaster waiting to happen.

[DanteGabriel]

Hooo boy. "Anti-business environment." Even in a time like this when deregulated corporations rode our economy off the cliff and a Democratic administration continues to grease itself up for the pleasure of those same corporations, people call the government anti-business. Shows you how much of the corporate Kool-Aid flows through the drinking water in America.

But let me guess, in a time when even more of the nation's wealth is concentrated in an ever-shrinking number of greedy hands, things just aren't the same as they were in those mythical Good Old Days eh?

[Shryke]

More likely that they´ll vote for the interests of what they wanna lobby for immediately after. Term limits are a disaster waiting to happen.

Of whoever is gonna pay for their election campaign for the next office they go after.

Turns out if you impose term limits, career politicians still exist. They just switch jobs alot more.

[Watcher]

Most effective action Americans can take to both reduce the deficit and solve umpteen other problems is to enforce term limits for all members of congress. The longer they're in office, the more corrupt they become. It wouldn't mean they could never run again for congress, only that their term would be interrupted after a certain period of time. Almost without exception, within a few terms they're indebted to the congressional lobbyists for their re-election campaign funding -- that's why most members are more responsive to unions & corporations than to the American people. Voters should put pressure on the next group of candidates to enact term limits, then tell congress they must spend 6mos of the year in their home district. Divide & conquer--keep them away from each other and closer to their constituents for at least 6mos per yr. Then we'll finally return to a government for, of and by the people, as it was meant to be.

I absolutely oppose term limits. It takes years to learn any complex job and twice that long to fix all the mistakes you've made from your first couple of years. I can not understand how people think running America is a part time job. Any job were there is heavy turn over loses all installation knowledge, the understanding of why things should be done one way and not another. And when that happens the people that will have control is the lobbyist who've been around for 10, 15 or 30 years. They are the people the new class of congresspeople will turn to learn their jobs, because they won't be able to ask anyone else.

Term limits = worse ideal ever.

If you serious about reducing the corruption in Washington, have them pass a law that would give them free TV and radio time on the major networks. Require each candidate to only use public funds for a campaign. Fund raising to get elected is the main reason Congress people claim they need to raise funds. Reduce that need and the special interest will lose some of their hold over them. I'd also like House members to hold office for 3 or 4 years, instead of two.

[Annelise]

We need to lock the doors of Country Kitchen Buffet and take down the AARP.

:lol:

[Swordfish]

I think this issue of income disparity is largely a red herring. You want to mitigate the problem of wealth disparity, you have to do it by going after capital, not income.

How anyone could advocate raising the rate on the lowest bracket though is utterly insane, unless you're simply trying to get TV time.

[Annelise]

Well, again, it's not the first time the AARP has sent out this kind of stuff to it's members.

I daresay. I suspect they have a rather honed sense of danger, in fact. I think it may even be a key to past success.

[Annelise]

How anyone could advocate raising the rate on the lowest bracket though is utterly insane, unless you're simply trying to get TV time.

I was going to say no office holding Republican would say that, but I really think Michelle Bachmann has it in her.

[Swordfish]

I daresay. I suspect they have a rather honed sense of danger, in fact. I think it may even be a key to past success.

Most definitely. But it's not an indicator of how serious the 'threat' is.

I was going to say no office holding Republican would say that, but I really think Michelle Bachmann has it in her.

:laugh:

You might be right.

[lokisnow]

yeah, it's pie in the sky for term limits, term limited lawmakers don't work for the good of the many in their last term, they focus exclusively on their next job, either as a highly paid lobbyist/consultant for a company that wants a legislative blowjob or by running for a different office.

Put it this way, should we pass a constitutional amendment that says no one in the united states is allowed to work ANY job for more than ten consecutive years? Whoops, sorry computer software engineer, you did great work for ten years, now you have to move to a new company and you need a new title, sorry, it's the law, you're not allowed to write code any more. You can however be a middle manager for the next ten years... we strongly suggest you do so, as all our middle managers are going to be writing all our code for the next ten years, it will be great!

I love this quote from this article:

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters consistently have rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.

"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.

*snip*

"While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide," McClusky said in a statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952

I love it, conservative-head-explosion. The sad part is, they don't realize how stupid and hypocritical they sound. The ruling was the law violates the states' rights to define marriage, and the conservative response is that liberal judges shouldn't take away states rights to define marriage? The Liberal Activist Judge just ruled with the same legal rationale you guys support and have championed and have used to encode legal discrimination and unequal rights in myriad other states.

In other words this is something you support... except when you don't.