Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HandBall]

Handball, Reagon with Democrats in many ways to get done what he wanted. It is a little known secret that he was a pretty bi partisan president since he had democratic majorities in all but two years of his presidency. I see Obama attempting to do the same thing.

First, I think history shows that Reagan was forced to buy the support for his defense buildup like other presidents have.  Over his 8 years, a 21.38% increase in revenues was only slightly out-paced by a 21.02% increase in spending.  Reagan's military build-up in his early years would eventually have been paid for with his revenue increases, but social spending growth on top of the defense growth kept any significant reductions in the deficit from being realized.  And that Social Spending growth was the price Reagan paid to get his national security funding.  When Reagan left office, his deficits were not much higher than those of Carter - everything being adjusted for inflation, but Social Spending growth was still on an upward curve, while Defense spending began dropping immediately after Reagan left office, and would stay at roughly 70% of Reagan's peak until 9/11.

Since 1980, Defense Spending has never significantly exceeded the levels in the mid-80s, including now.  But all the while that Social Spending has rocketed upward, to nearly 2 1/2 times what is was in 1980, and that's after adjusting for inflation AND ignoring the future obligations that we're not setting aside money now to pay for when we'll need it.

Factor in those growing unfunded obligations and the growth of Social Spending is off the charts with somewhere between $65 and $80 TRILLION needed above expected revenues, in today's dollars, to keep the Welfare State churning.  And now Obama's approach is to reinstate the Welfare state reformed 10 years ago and add even more promises and obligations to what we already can't possibly meet?

As for Obama trying to be bipartisan, in my book it's been more of the same; just words.  Meeting with Republicans isn't negotiating or compromising when he simply says he's won and he'll have it his way.  Democrats then locking Republicans out of the conference bill meetings and posting the bill in a non-keyword searchable 1,071-page monster just 10 hours before the debate in the House starts isn't much evidence of bipartisanship either.  The whole thing sounds like a railroading of the taxpayer and future generations to me. 

Gone is the 48 hour review period he promised that the American people and Republicans would have to review legislation before it was voted on. And if he signs the bill tomorrow after returning from vacation, so will the 5-day promise for public review after approval of final legislation before he signs any bill into law.  I guess the point is that at some point people are going to figure out that when Obama's lips are moving, what comes out can't be relied upon.  From his most ethical pledges, to his no lobbyist pledges, none of it is any different than his first major campaign pledge that he broke to follow FEC guidelines and limits.  In that regard he is much like Bill Clinton, but only more dangerous.  Bill Clinton's only fundamental principles were focused on his personal self-gratification in office.  Obama, on the other hand, appears to be playing with us, using his blind followers to offset the growing awakening, while working to return America to the bygone days of FDR as fast as possible, with growing government involvement in everyone's lives and ever-increasing authority over the lives of every citizen.

I wish every supporter of this president's actions so far would look up the definition of words like "liberty" and "freedom"?  It's looking more and more like people never learned what those words stand for.

[basketballdad]

Handball I wish conservatives would look up liberty and freedom also. Especially when it comes to violating the constitution with domestic wire tapping, holding U.S. citizens without due process, (i.e. regardless of whether they are classified combtants or terrorists if they are u.s. citizens they are entitled to due process), condoning torture, justice department withholding documents from other authorized agencies, and the list goes on and on. I guess if you have a good reason like fighting terrorism then the constitution does not apply but for something mundane like social spending on the poor then all of sudden we are shouting where is it in the constitution. By the way thanks for agreeing with me that Reagon was bi partisan. Justify it however you like but he worked with Democrats to accomplish things like Clinton had to work with Republicans to get welfare reform and other bills passed. Doubt it could happen today. By the way it is not more of the same since Obama has reached out more than any president in recent memory. Dinners with conservative commentators, meeting with individual and small groups of Republicans, etc etc. At least have the decency to disagree with him on policy decision which is very appropriate but don't try to tell me it is more of the same because it is not. He might be wrong but he is more of the mold of Reagan and Clinton than Bush when it comes to reaching across the aisle. Heck Bush couldn't even get his own party on board with his immigration plan. He had trouble reaching over to his own side of the aisle.

[EWSoccer64]

BBD<<<Handball I wish conservatives would look up liberty and freedom also. Especially when it comes to violating the constitution with domestic wire tapping, holding U.S. citizens without due process, (i.e. regardless of whether they are classified combtants or terrorists if they are u.s. citizens they are entitled to due process), condoning torture, justice department withholding documents from other authorized agencies, and the list goes on and on. I guess if you have a good reason like fighting terrorism then the constitution does not apply but for something mundane like social spending on the poor then all of sudden we are shouting where is it in the constitution.>>>>

First of all, National Defense has a long history of trumping civil rights.   That philosophy predates the Civil War, which along with WW2 were the most glaring examples of this policy and its occasional excesses.
Second of all, every case of wire tapping undertaken by the Bush Administration has been upheld in court when challenged.
Third of all, there has been no instance where any American citizen has been arrested and held under arrest because of any "warrentless wiretapping."
Fourth, The single American arrested in the USA that was classified as an illegal enemy combatant recieved due process (and more) accorded to illegal enemy combatants. 
Fifth, there has been no instance of government supported torture of an American citizen or of anyone on US soil.
Sixth, Under the law, classified documents are distributed only on a "need to know" basis.
Seventh, the Illegal Enemy Combatants that are detained overseas recieve treatment that is at a minimum that required to be offered to them under the Geneva Convention.   BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FALL UNDER IT, BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.  So we could just shoot them all out of hand, and it would be perfectly legal and have plenty of historical precedent.  But we do not, we treat them much better than they are legally entitled to.

Again, you have shown no instance except in the detained illegal enemy combatant (terrorist) who was a US citizen that the Constitution has been infringed upon.  And that single instance is countered by more than a century of legal precedents.

[basketballdad]

As you just have pointed out the Constitution is flexible and not worth pursuing if the circumstances are approrpriate. Unfortunately, true constitutionalists would disagree. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was okayed by the Supreme Court but later found to be unlawful and damages were given. Second, I disagree that torture has not been done. If you don't think so then explain why some low level army soldiers are sitting in prison today because of Guatonamo Bay. Aslo, nice choice of words "on U.S. soil" I guess if we torture in Eastern Europe that makes it okay. Third, the need to know basis you quote is not assigned exclusively to the executive branch of the government as I am sure you are aware of. Appropriate authorities of the legislative and judicial branch have always been allowed access. I am sure you would not want so much power implanted in one branch of the government. Finally with regards to illegal combatants the Supreme Court disagrees with you so I will bow to their legal knowledge.

[EWSoccer64]

As you just have pointed out the Constitution is flexible and not worth pursuing if the circumstances are approrpriate. Unfortunately, true constitutionalists would disagree. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was okayed by the Supreme Court but later found to be unlawful and damages were given. Second, I disagree that torture has not been done. If you don't think so then explain why some low level army soldiers are sitting in prison today because of Guatonamo Bay. Aslo, nice choice of words "on U.S. soil" I guess if we torture in Eastern Europe that makes it okay. Third, the need to know basis you quote is not assigned exclusively to the executive branch of the government as I am sure you are aware of. Appropriate authorities of the legislative and judicial branch have always been allowed access. I am sure you would not want so much power implanted in one branch of the government. Finally with regards to illegal combatants the Supreme Court disagrees with you so I will bow to their legal knowledge.

I never said that that the constitution is not worth pursuing if the circumstances are appropriate.  I said that is what has happened in the past.
Damages were not awarded to the Japanese-Americans by any court decision that was upheld, if memory serves.  There was a political decision to pay a token amount ($40K?  $50K?   My roommate in college's father recieved a payment, they used it for a down payment on a Lake Chelan cabin.) 

I never said that torture had not been done.  I said that the government had not tortured Americans, and that torture had not taken place on American soil.   I can neither confirm nor deny that the US Government has participated in the holding of suspects in Eastern Europe, nor anything about their treatment.   
However, there has been no indication that any American has been held by such an alleged system.

As far as need to know being carried over to the Judicial and Legistlative branches, that can occur if they have a need to know.  Most of the time, they don't.  They do not need to know classified codes, they do not need to know the working of classified equipment, they do not need to know the real source of most intelligence information, and so on.  And that is the vast bulk of properly classified material and information.

As far as the issue of the Supreme Court in regards to illegal combatants, you cannot logically cite the Supreme Court as errronious in the post and then cite it as the fount of all legal correctedness.  That is illogical.  And you are not entirely correct, either.  The Supreme Court has not stated that the terrorists fall under the Geneva Conventions like legal combatants do.


Nice to see that you have dropped the whining about the wiretapping, though.   FYI- Echelon has been runnin since the 1980s.

[basketballdad]

I am surprised by your lack of concern for the executive branch continuing to add power. The 20th century and now the 21st century has seen increased power for the presidency. Ironically, for someone who I am sure appreciates the founding fathers there is not doubt they would be horrified by the power that one branch has. I would think you would be one of the biggest supporters of the whole checks and balances concept. I have to admit I am surprised.

[EWSoccer64]

BBD,

Indeed, I am very concerned about the accumulation of power by various branches.

I have long been concerne about the increased power of the judiciary and their inclination to "legislate from the bench".

Patriot Act?  Expansion of Execuative Powers?  Those things have concerned me.  The misuse of execuative orders by Clinton (particularly at the end of his term) and Obama (record setting number of initial execuative orders) are a concern.   One thing that every honest person has to recognize is that the controversial parts of the Bush Administration's "Anti-Terrorism Campaign" like the LEGAL wiretapping, etc. were all directed towards national security.  While the potential for mis-use is evident - and ever more worrisome now that people like Leon "Filegate" Poinetta is the head of the CIA - There was no instance of the misuse of the national security apparatus during the Bush Administration for political advantage.    Bush was not Nixon, he was not Clinton, he ran an ethical - if partisan - administration.  By every indication, Obama's will combine the worst aspects of Carters and Clinton's, hopefully without the Bimbo aspect.

So yes, I am horrified by the power that federal government has, and is increasing, over every aspect of our lives.  I am horrified at the the absysmal record of the legislative branch over the past six years.  I am horrified about the liberal judiciary trying to bend society around their private political agenda.  I am horrified about the accumulation of power of the execuative branch.   And I am most horrified about the sheer size and power of government.   I would be even more horrified if the execuative branch did not do everything concievable to prevent foreign terrorists from denotating a nuclear bomb in New York or DC.   And my secret nightmere is that the terrorists get a bio-weapon and unleash it upon the world.   In case you have not noticed, al-qaeda terrorists have been found dead from the plague in both Algeria and Afghanistan.  Intelligence - which has been leaked to the media - indicates that in both regions al-qaeda sub-leaders reported up their chain of command that there had been accidents with their special weapons. 

How many hundreds of millions need to die from terrorists bio-weapons before it is acceptable to use full wartime powers against terrorists?

[basketballdad]

You know what the "what if" brigade is always out in force. Shoot we went to war in Iraq who has always been less of a threat than North Korea. Come to find out that Iran is significantly further along in the development of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq ever was. Not to mention the crazed North Korea dictator who has made even more grandiose threats against South Korea and the U.S. than Saddam ever did. Why do we not invade those two countries. I know the reason, do you? What about the fact we still have a huge amount of people who think Sadamm had something to do with 911 when it was mostly Saudi Arabians who continue to sponsor schools where rabid anti Americanism is taught. Why do we coddle the Saudi's and destroy Iraq while doing nothing with Iran or North Korea. Why is it that we have satellites that can read what your tattoo says, more wealth to use to buy information, the most powerful military on earth, and  a 6'5" diabetic old guy runs around laughing at us. Are you kidding me? Don't even get me started on the security, or lack thereof, of Russian plutonium and uranium. There are so many real threats to be worried about and we ignore them to go after a ready made bogeyman that made us feel a lot safer I guess. The world is a complex place with legitimate threats. However, most people don't realize it since we like to focus on a specific one and do something. Borders are still porous, many real threats are out there, but keep thinking we are focused on what we need to. Meanwhile the old guy that masterminded continues to laugh and real threats become more real every day. By the way Bush's lack of ethics makes Clintons sexual escapades look funny and Nixons lies look pragmatic. Ask Gonzales how he is doing? Or maybe the various honored generals who were ridiculed after they retired because they spoke out against what they thought was wrong policy. (one minute honored military leader, retired and speak out, and now incompetent imbecile) Only the simpletons would think you can go from a hero to  goat because of thoughtful disagreement after getting out. By the way ask almost any historian which branch has increased their powers the most in the last 100 years and it would be an easy call. Hint: it it is not the legislative branch who still can only pass laws, or the judicial branch who can only interpret them (just because you don't like thier ruling doesn't mean they are legislating from the bench). One branch lately seems to think that they can do the work of all three. ( see executive orders, interpreting the constitution on their own, and enforcing laws as per their job)

[EWSoccer64]

Nice try at dodging, BBD.  However, next time get your facts straight.  Iraq was not only ahead of Iran in terms of WMD, it had developed and used them.   Iran did respond in kind back in the 1980s.
But Iraq was clearly the leader in the arms race the two had.

And you cite Bush's alleged lack of ethics.   Please present some proof, instead of more left wing BS.   Show where he personally exhibited a lack of ethics.  You may argue that he was wrong in his opinions or strategies, but that is not the same thing.

In terms of one branch increasing its power at the expense of the others, review the power of the Judiciary compared to the Execuative Branch back when the execuative branch removed the Chreokee from their lands and then compare it to now.   That is a concrete example.   Compare that situation to the current one, and it would hard to doubt that the Judicial Branch has increased its power the most.


Still, it is interesting that you find the other parts of the Axis of Evil to be so much more of a danger to the US and our allies than Iraq was.   Perhaps you have a viable suggestion on how to deal with them other than war?

You know what the "what if" brigade is always out in force. Shoot we went to war in Iraq who has always been less of a threat than North Korea. Come to find out that Iran is significantly further along in the development of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq ever was. Not to mention the crazed North Korea dictator who has made even more grandiose threats against South Korea and the U.S. than Saddam ever did. Why do we not invade those two countries. I know the reason, do you? What about the fact we still have a huge amount of people who think Sadamm had something to do with 911 when it was mostly Saudi Arabians who continue to sponsor schools where rabid anti Americanism is taught. Why do we coddle the Saudi's and destroy Iraq while doing nothing with Iran or North Korea. Why is it that we have satellites that can read what your tattoo says, more wealth to use to buy information, the most powerful military on earth, and  a 6'5" diabetic old guy runs around laughing at us. Are you kidding me? Don't even get me started on the security, or lack thereof, of Russian plutonium and uranium. There are so many real threats to be worried about and we ignore them to go after a ready made bogeyman that made us feel a lot safer I guess. The world is a complex place with legitimate threats. However, most people don't realize it since we like to focus on a specific one and do something. Borders are still porous, many real threats are out there, but keep thinking we are focused on what we need to. Meanwhile the old guy that masterminded continues to laugh and real threats become more real every day. By the way Bush's lack of ethics makes Clintons sexual escapades look funny and Nixons lies look pragmatic. Ask Gonzales how he is doing? Or maybe the various honored generals who were ridiculed after they retired because they spoke out against what they thought was wrong policy. (one minute honored military leader, retired and speak out, and now incompetent imbecile) Only the simpletons would think you can go from a hero to  goat because of thoughtful disagreement after getting out. By the way ask almost any historian which branch has increased their powers the most in the last 100 years and it would be an easy call. Hint: it it is not the legislative branch who still can only pass laws, or the judicial branch who can only interpret them (just because you don't like thier ruling doesn't mean they are legislating from the bench). One branch lately seems to think that they can do the work of all three. ( see executive orders, interpreting the constitution on their own, and enforcing laws as per their job)

[basketballdad]

Nice try but you are partially correct. Chemical weapons Iraq was ahead but nuclear no way. Depends on which WMD's you are referring to I guess. North Korea is way ahead of both and more bellicose than Iraq although Iran is giving them a run for their money. Why don't we go to war is my questions. All of your justifying a war whose purpose changed by the year are so gunshy to advocate for war against Iran or North Korea. Regardless of which of the many changing reasons we went to war in Iraq most of them exist to the same or greater degree in other parts of the world. Nice to know you ignored my comments about the mastermind of 911 who is still scot free. Sorry but most historians would disagree with you as the specific powers of the judiciary have not really changed. The executive, rightly or wrongly, has assumed more. See I don't like the posturing when it is easy. Much tougher to do when there is a lot more at stake. Look at North Koreas army compared to Iraq's not to mention nearby allies and you will see why we don't go to war there.

[EWSoccer64]

You stated WMD.  Now you are trying to parse.   And you are wrong again, by the way.  Iraq was known to be well ahead of Iran in both chemical and biological weapons.  Thanks in large part to the Israeli raid Osiris, the Iraqi nuclear program was retarded.  But until the last decade, it was still ahead of Iran's.   North Korea was a different kettle of fish.    It was and is ahead of both Iran and Iraq in all categories of WMDs, although it's focus has always been more battlefield use.  And it is more constrained politically, economically and geographically.
And I have never been reticent against advocating the idea of war against Iran.  At the time we entered Baghdad, I was loudly yelling "Turn Right".   North Korea is a different kettle of fish.   War is not really neccessary, we could enforce a seaborne blockade and simply starve the nation into either submission or anarchy, whichever comes first.    And with the ironclad assurance that if they set off a nuke or other WMD, we would turn their country into a glass parking lot (aka deterence, which is problematical with lunatics).

And since we were talking about Iraq, your bringing in bin laden was a red herring.  While Iraq was one of the biggest supporters of terrorism on the face of the planet, it was not involved with 9/11.  Still there were many reasons for going to war, which I have illuminated some of previously.  And which you have not tried to address other than to bring up Iran and North Korea as examples of nations that deserve to be "regime changed" even more.   (Which is a problematical claim.  Iran has not invaded a neighbor - fear of US response? - and North Korea has not since we kicked them back north of the border more than 50 years ago.)  Sure, both countries have supported terrorism, are crazy societies, and pretty much are failed states that support their regimes through mantras of anti-Americanism.   But if those are sufficient criteria to go to war with, then you must add Cuba and Venezuela to your list as well.

Changing reasons about going to war with Iraq?   As I recall, there were 13 points given by the Bush Administration for going to war with Iraq.  I agreed with about 8 or 9 as valid reasons for going to war.   WMD threat was lower down on my list, but like the rest of the world, I believed that Iraq STILL had WMDs.  Didn't you?  Or were you the only one on Earth besides William Baldwin and Sean Penn who believed Saddam Hussein's claims of not having any of them?   Even the FRENCH believed that they were still there.

And rather than be happy that the USA was never able to uncover the stockpiles, perhaps you should ask yourself what happened to them?

In regards to the growth of government power, Judicial vs Execuative, I agree that you can debate about which branch has grown more powerful relative to the beginnings, but so far all we have discussed is the examples from Judiciary being ignored over the Trail of Tears Event to the current situation where they can abrograte the right to own private property if it interferes with a development boards plans to bring in a shopping mall.

So we have a timeline, and a massive progression of growth of power.   This has been demonstrated and agreed to, on the Judicial Branch side.  Please demonstrate and equal GROWTH on the Execuative side.  Note, no more going off on tangents, and no debate that the Execuative Branch is very powerful or too powerful.  This is a given.  The point of debate, as brought up by you, BBD, was the GROWTH of RELATIVE power. 

Nice try but you are partially correct. Chemical weapons Iraq was ahead but nuclear no way. Depends on which WMD's you are referring to I guess. North Korea is way ahead of both and more bellicose than Iraq although Iran is giving them a run for their money. Why don't we go to war is my questions. All of your justifying a war whose purpose changed by the year are so gunshy to advocate for war against Iran or North Korea. Regardless of which of the many changing reasons we went to war in Iraq most of them exist to the same or greater degree in other parts of the world. Nice to know you ignored my comments about the mastermind of 911 who is still scot free. Sorry but most historians would disagree with you as the specific powers of the judiciary have not really changed. The executive, rightly or wrongly, has assumed more. See I don't like the posturing when it is easy. Much tougher to do when there is a lot more at stake. Look at North Koreas army compared to Iraq's not to mention nearby allies and you will see why we don't go to war there.

[basketballdad]

Hanball, I don't have time but will get back to your points in detail later. Will point out that yesterdays Seattle Times and almost every other paper had nice article regarding Israel's extreme concern that Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Still waiting for that uranium Sadamm had. I do not ask what happened to the imaginary stockpiles that no one has ever seen. I believed Sadamm had chemical weapons and was on the road to biological but unlike the the masses never believed he had nuclear capability or was even close. Much more complex issue than did he have WMD's or not. I parse words because they do matter except of the simple ones that like everything in black and white.

By the way the invasion of a foreign country is a red herring as Sadamm had not intention of invading any foreign country leading up to the war. If you are referring to the Gulf War his capacity to invade after it was so significantly limited that no real military expert ever thought he could do it again. It is like the bogeyman again. Remember the famous guard that was so powerful and going to be hard to destroy. They were routed so quickly it was laughable. American military might is unparelled that much is obvious. However, as we have seen repeatedly is not the standard battle that we have problems with. Most of the Iraq threat was the same. See you have to understand more than weapons and stockpiles. Unlike the mullahs in Iran Sadamm was not a religious person. Osama and he never liked each other due to their differences on religion. They could appreciate each others efforts to help us and provide some assistance but given the chance Osam would have killed Sadamm and vice versa. Sadamm was much more like the former Soviet Union in that pragmatism was more important than religious fervor. What you should be asking is why do we downplay the threat from Iran when the religious element throws a whole new variable that we are unprepared to deal with. When I get back I will be happy to show the changing reasons for going to war as more information became available.

[EWSoccer64]

>>>Will point out that yesterdays Seattle Times and almost every other paper had nice article regarding Israel's extreme concern that Iran has enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb. Still waiting for that uranium Sadamm had.<<<<

Anyone who paid attention to the news read where the UN completed the removal of Saddams tons of uranium from Iraq in the last couple of years.   Please try to keep up, BBD.