News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Char. Limit]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

 

[turbo]

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

We have a horrible unemployment situation. Unfortunately for the Democrats, republicans across the country seem to want to join in the anti-Obama witch hunt. That is not going to serve them well, IMO. There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

 

[talk2glenn]

LOL. Just made up a list of things that the constitution does not prohibit as a basis for denying voting rights.

Yes it does.

Basically, anything except race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, or age (if >18).I won't argue about what a court will or won't do, but the constitution specifically says that states are free to deny people a right to vote for any reason except the ones I listed above. And they did so (upheld by the courts) for those reasons prior to the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments respectively. Why do you think those amendments were enacted?

Absurd. The Constitution reserves to the states the right to organize and conduct legal elections. The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination. Ergo, by definition, election law cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender, ever, and there must be a rational basis for other types of discrimination.

One would be hard pressed to convince even the wackiest appellate judge that a rational person would agree that there was a compelling public interest in denying someone the right to vote because of the length of their hair.

That's false. States were free to disenfranchise blacks prior to the 15th amendment, women prior to the 19th amendment, etc. Those amendments were enacted specifically because the constitution otherwise allows disenfranchisement.

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

But, if a state did choose to disenfranchise all scorpios, for example, any honest court would uphold it, then we would pass another constitutional amendment. You can say otherwise, but that's what happened for the cases of previous disenfranchisement based on race, gender, and age.

No, they would not. Please see Baker v Carr, Reynolds v Simms, or hell, even Bush v Gore.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

 

[WhoWee]

Not long after my wife and I moved here, I had to supply a copy of my birth certificate. Guess what. It got misplaced in the move, so I had to take time off, go to the clerk's office in the county seat, and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii). Due to environmental illness (inability to fly, for sure) I had already let my passport lapse. There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

In Ohio (specifically - may be other places), the county welfare departments send voter registration forms out with their benefits continuation forms.

By the way, have you tried to cross the Canadian border recently?

 

[CRGreathouse]

O'connor was born 1930. Not sure how usual it is at that age.

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

 

[Jasongreat]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

 

[CAC1001]

There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

And there is a blindness among Democrats in acknowledging that their party had been in control of Congress for two years when the financial crisis hit.

Also, the Democrats' argument to justify their big spending being to point out that Republicans spent a lot, IMO doesn't hold water, because they just spent years criticizing the Republicans' excessive spending and the American people elected Obama to move us away from what Bush and the Republicans had been doing; so why would they then engage in an agenda requiring even more spending after having been so critical of spending under the previous party?

Also I'd disagree that the GOP being anti-Obama will hurt them; if anything, I think that is what the American people want.

 

[CAC1001]

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

 

[Al68]

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination.

Illogical bunk. Were the 15th, and 19th amendments enacted for no reason whatsoever?

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

I made no claim regarding Supreme Court doctrine. My claim was about what the 14th amendment says. The actual text of the 14th amendment did not change between enactment and 1962.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

LOL. I'm not the one confusing what the constitution does or doesn't say with Supreme Court doctrine. And I'm not the one that thinks the 15th and 19th amendments were enacted because the 14th amendment already prohibited denying the right to vote based on race and gender.

And LOL at taking my list of "constitutional ways to deny voting" so seriously. Did you think it was a list of things I thought were reasonable?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

One of the Tea Party complaints (often ridiculed) is that nobody reads, let alone understands, the "packaged" legislation - 2,000 page Bills stuffed with items that have nothing to do with the core legislation. Both sides are guilty and both have an excuse for bad legislation - "teflon Congress". The solution is to require legislation have a clear purpose, have responsible spending/budget considerations, and most important - be required reading prior to voting. We should never hear that we'll find out what's in the legislation after it's enacted (health care). By the way, I agree, this would require Congress to work every day, not take extended fact finding gllbal trips, and stay off the campaign trail - tun on their voting record.

 

[BobG]

Agreed. I needed mine for a SS/Medicare issue, and it shouldn't have cost me money for a notarized copy. We pay taxes that support the operation of the county offices. The copy was needed to help prevent Medicare fraud, which I whole-heartedly support, but getting that copy was a pain in the butt. It is, after all, a public record. If someone other than myself or my wife wanted to order that document, they should have to pay.

If I had been a day-laborer, or a regularly-employed low-wage laborer, and I had to take hours (and it took hours) off my job to prove that I was a US citizen, I'd have to carefully weigh the lost time, chances of losing my job, and the out-of-pocket expense to get that documentation. In my case that wasn't a big thing. In the case of Native Americans and Natural-Born and Naturalized Hispanics in Arizona, it could be a really big thing. Big enough to discourage them from even registering to vote, which is sad. US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:

1.Order A Birth Certificate

Have the following on hand before you begin your order:

•The state or province (and in most areas of the US, the city and/or county) in which the birth took place.
•The certificate holder's name as it appears on the birth certificate. If adopted, please enter your adoptive information.
•The month, day and year of the birth (and in some cases, the name of the hospital).
•The legal name of the parents identified on the birth certificate (including the mother's maiden name before marriage).
•Your billing and shipping addresses (street address only - courier deliveries will not be shipped to PO boxes, APO or FPO military addresses). Note that some agencies will only ship to the verified credit card billing address.
•Your method of payment. We recommend having your valid credit card with number and expiration date in hand while you order.
Note: In most instances, you must be a member of the birth certificate holder's immediate family to receive the record.

Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

 

[mheslep]

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

Yes, but at 80?

 

[mheslep]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

 

[mheslep]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

That should be 'borrow and spend' for Republicans given the Bush tax cuts; and 'tax, borrow, and spend a hell of lot more' for Democrats.

 

[turbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

 

[mheslep]

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:


Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

Interesting. If the process is similarly easy in other states and the fee is minimal, then the legal objections to AZ's proof of citizenship requirement are specious.

 

[mheslep]

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

You make statements and everyone else is granted the pleasure of looking up the reference?

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, $950 billion greater than the shortfall recorded in 2008.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf
The 2010 deficit is also much larger than '08 at $1.17T

 

[turbo]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

 

[Gokul43201]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

That's the GDP, not the deficit.

 

[WhoWee]

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

Nothing will ever be Obama's fault - I say let's re-distribute the blame evenly amongst Congress - starting with Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd.

 

[Gokul43201]

Umm ... can we get back on topic please?

 

[turbo]

That's the GDP, not the deficit.

Oops, sorry.


http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-us-deficit-shrinks-still-tops-one-trillion

The US deficit shrank nine percent last fiscal year but still topped one trillion dollars, the government said Friday in a report seized on by Democrats' rivals weeks ahead of mid-term elections.For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high.Revenue rose and spending fell amid recovery from recession and as President Barack Obama's Democratic administration wound down some of the emergency measures taken to restore growths.

Not much we can do about fiscal year 2009, which started under Bush during a crash and ended under Obama, also during the crash.

 

[WhoWee]

Did you read the entire "bullfax" article you linked?

 

[turbo]

And here is a spreadsheet regarding how much was added to or subtracted from the deficit per presidential term.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

 

[Jasongreat]

And here is a spreadsheet regarding how much was added to or subtracted from the deficit per presidential term.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

That is the kicker, per presidential term. Presidents don't spend money, congress does, Clinton spent less, during a republican controlled congress. Bush spent more, during a democratically controlled congress.

 

[turbo]

That is the kicker, per presidential term. Presidents don't spend money, congress does, Clinton spent less, during a republican controlled congress. Bush spent more, during a democratically controlled congress.

And Obama should get credit for rolling back deficit-spending with a Democratic Congress. But that will never happen, will it?

 

[WhoWee]

And Obama should get credit for rolling back deficit-spending with a Democratic Congress. But that will never happen, will it?

I'll ask again turbo - did you read the document you linked to and are now using to make your point?

 

[Gokul43201]

That is the kicker, per presidential term. Presidents don't spend money, congress does, Clinton spent less, during a republican controlled congress.

Not only is this an oversimplification, it misses some key facts:

For instance, Clinton started out with a Dem Congress for two years and cuts deficits with them at roughly the same rate that he was cutting deficits under a Rep Congress.

Bush spent more, during a democratically controlled congress.

Bush's worst deficits were not in 2008, with a recession growing, and a Dem Congress in control (although Bush did contribute significantly to the 2009 deficit with the Dem Congress he had in '08). They were in 2003 and 2004, under a Rep Congress, and with a healthy economy (GDP growth during those years was the highest it's been in the last decade).

 

[edward]

Not only is this an oversimplification, it misses some key facts:

For instance, Clinton started out with a Dem Congress for two years and cuts deficits with them at roughly the same rate that he was cutting deficits under a Rep Congress.

Bush's worst deficits were not in 2008, with a recession growing, and a Dem Congress in control (although Bush did contribute significantly to the 2009 deficit with the Dem Congress he had in '08). They were in 2003 and 2004, under a Rep Congress, and with a healthy economy (GDP growth during those years was the highest it's been in the last decade).

Yet it really wasn't a sustainable economy. GDP is a measure of spending and most of the spending was done on credit. The people were on a spending spree, as were businesses and government.

It all looked great on a paper until it blew up in our faces.

 

[WhoWee]

And Obama should get credit for rolling back deficit-spending with a Democratic Congress. But that will never happen, will it?

I agree, Obama should get full credit for his efforts. From your link.


http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-us-deficit-shrinks-still-tops-one-trillion

"US deficit tops Obama forecast by 1.2 trillion dollars: CBO

The US government budget deficit for the next decade is expected to be wider by 1.2 trillions dollars than projected by President Barack Obama's administration, estimates by Congress showed Friday.Under Obama's latest budget projections, the cumulative deficit over the 2011-2020 period was 8.532 trillion dollars.But the Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday the deficit would snowball to 9.761 trillion dollars"