Taken from Town Hall, by Meredith Jessup:
One of the latest stories buzzing around the blogosphere during this holiday break is one regarding President Obama’s December 17 Executive Order, “Amending Executive Order 12425.”
EO12425 was issued by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1983 which granted the international policing agency INTERPOL diplomatic status in the United States to help conduct global investigations more effectively. However, Reagan specifically made two exceptions to INTERPOL’s diplomatic immunities. The first had to do with taxation; the second required INTERPOL to operate under the oversight of US law enforcement agencies, be held accountable according to US laws and produce records when demanded by courts.
Obama’s “amendment” to Reagan’s original Executive Order, however, completely undermines these exceptions and threatens to give international policing agencies immunity from US laws when operating within our own borders. ThreatsWatch reports:
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates… on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. …
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2? and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
INTERPOL officers would therefore have immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US–a policing agency literally “above the law.” In addition, Americans arrested by INTERPOL agents in the US will not be guaranteed access to documentation normally accessible during the US legal process.
Andy McCarthy at National Review has some additional questions about this very questionable policy shift:
Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
____________________
So, Eastern Idaho, what do you think about this?
Popularity: 1%
Related posts:
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Don’t know about all of Eastern Idaho, but I think the poster of this should do a little research. For instance:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp
Hey All,
Well, as usual, Snopes proves its value as good place to START looking for the truth – not so much as a place to STOP.
I did a history & explanation of this over @ my place (got here from there via long and circuitous route) – Go HERE and you’ll see that, like so many things Obama has done that’s left people shaking their heads, this act wasn’t ‘overt’ so much as ’set-up’… and the Devil is in the details.
- Ron
I am curious of Mr./Mrs. Bundy…
You titled this opinion “Obama Shreds Constitution With Executive Order”, acsting aspersions on the act of giving diplomatic status to an international law enforcement agency, who at worst may help us to uncover and deal with possible terrorists within our borders.
My curiosity stems from the following question:
“Why is it I saw ZERO comments from you here (or anywhere else) raising a fit when President Geroge W. Bush both outrightly ignored the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution by allowing, ne ORDERING unwarranted wiretaps of Americans talking to other Americans within our borders, AND was guilty of fraud, by allowing his subordinates to manipulate, obfuscate, and create intelligence (sic) to convince the Congress to declare war on a country (Iraq) that was not, never has been, never will be a threat to this country, WHILE allowing the perpetrators of 911 to run free and cause havok , mayhem, and more death around the globe?
And while we’re at it, why do you pull quotes from the well known right wing fishwrap National Review, that claim the government is keeping secret files that the public can not scrutinize, when, again, President Bush openly REFUSED to allow the “public” access to files, transcripts of meetings that had NOTHING to d owith national security, at a rate unprecedented by ALL OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED?
But keep throwing these jokes out into the public forum. The more the neocons complain about things they did ten forl more frequently, the longer it will be before anyone ever takes you seriously again and even longer before they are anywhere NEAR a place of power again.
Why is it when someone asks a question or makes a comment which is unfavorable to an Obama position that the automatic response is a complaint about whether or not someone said anything about Bush? Go back and read the Constitution. We only have ONE president. Right now, that president is Obama. If I, or anyone else, want to explore an issue on the table which Obama has given his support for and is acting against, I want to talk about that. I do NOOOOOOOOOT want to talk about what George Bush did or did not do, or what people said about him or did not say about him.
Let me throw out a question about Obama. We have clear supporters of him on this site. He was elected and took the majority vote of the people as well, not just the electoral vote. His support has fallen below 50%. Most polls show that only around 35% of the people favor his health care plan. The amount of support he has is changing, and not in his favor. Are there any posters here who are willing to tell us they voted for him, but are now part of the percentage who have fallen away? And are they willing to tell us why?
DJ, can you step away from your blind support of him and speak about the issues or are you still living in the last decade and only willing to talk about Bush? If you want to beat former President Bush about the head and shoulders, may I suggest you post an article for that purpose so those of us who want to discuss current events and issues can do so without irrelevant comments interrupting intelligent discussion?
As an example:
1 – How do the posters here feel about President Obama promising he would have a transparent government then pulling C-Span coverage of the health care discussions? Was it done to hide what was being discussed or was it done to dial back the rhetoric so intelligent discussion could be achieved?
2 – How do the posters feel about President Obama promising “lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House” then appointing several in his first few days of office? Was this a broken promise – one he never intended to keep but sounded good to the voters, or was it a case of the lobbyists being truly the best person for the job?
3 – What about his promise that if the congress passed the stimulus bill, unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8% but that if they didn’t, it would be catastrophic? Was it a case of bad information from his cabinet and advisors or was it a subtle way to raise taxes by appearing to react to an emergency or evidence that even the President can’t “control” every aspect of the economy?
I truly don’t know the answers to these questions, nor do I believe anyone here has the real answers, only Pres. Obama would truly know what he was thinking, but I am interested in intelligent discussion and opinions on the subjects. I’m worried about our economy and our future. We have an election coming up in a few months and I believe in trying to be informed. I think there are some posters here who can offer up some information (and unfortunately others who use this site just to sling insults).
My Dear Another Guest…
Sure, I’d be happy to answer your questions and discuss the topics YOU would like me to.
First, I’ll address your assertion that I carry “blind support” of President Obama. If you have read any posts other than your own (over and over) you would know that I do NOT agree with every decision he has made.
Unlike yourself however, I AM taking a realistic look at the BIG Picture; noting that while it took the Bush administration 7 years to allow our current situations with the ecconomy, foreign relations matters, unemployment, etc., etc., etc., I am going to give President Obama at least half of that to get things back on track, something YOU donot seemwilling to do.
Furthermore, you asked if I was willing to speak on the issues. Let’s…
1. In the 49 weeks that President Obama has been in office, his opposition (people such as yourselves) bitch, moan and complain, but not ONCE have any of you offered up a better solution for the woes that our country is now facing, woes that by and large we did NOT suffer during the administration previous to that of President Bush.
2. Being incredibly well read, as I am sure you are, you are aware that, where President Bush allowed 1.3 trillion dollars to go to AIG iwth no strings, no demand oh more responsible financial decision making, NO requirement to pay it back, yesterday President Obama, after having already enacted a ceiling for executive pay and bonuses to those institutions that received bailout assistance, announced a fee that will now be charged to the financial institutions who received bailout assistance AS WELL AS a significant tax on bonuses to executives of those same institutions that are over a reasonable, pre-determnined amount. The reason for these measures is so that the money that was originally intended as loans to help these businesses get back on their feet WOULD BE REPAID, thereby reducing the debt incurred by these previously necessary measures.
Now we can’t talk about anything responsible or intelligent that Bush did in this way…because he didn’t.
The bottom line being, the reason I and most people DO refer to President Bush when discussing these topics is because they did not exist (or certainly not to the extent they do now) when Bush took office and we do not want to see the same mistakes made again.
Now, in response to your other proposal…
Yes, I voted for Obama, proudly. And while, as I have stated earlier, that I do not agree with all of his decisions, I am not among those “baby-with-the-bathwater” types who expected a quick fix (stupid) and are ready to run for someone who will just tell them what they want to hear.
Much like you did not, I am sure, bolt from President Bush in August of 2001, when after only six months, he had enacted THREE tax cuts benefitting ONLY people who made more than 1 million dollars in income the previous year, took a 798 BILLION dollar surplus on the day he was innaugurated and in less than 180 days, turned it into a 1.7 TRILLION dollar defecit, had his vice president hol;d secret meetings with oil company execs to draw up a national energy plan, which saw prices at the pump raise 47%, and ignored the direct and specific warnings of the previous administration, his secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, heads of BOTH the FBI AND CIA that bin Laden and al-Queda were the main threat and were planning an attack, thereby allowing 911 to happen.
You are to be commended for your vigorous support of the worst President this country has ever known. I can only hope you will reasonably give the current President the same amount of time to fix the mess he left us.
In response…then I need to get back to work…
1 – How do the posters here feel about President Obama promising he would have a transparent government then pulling C-Span coverage of the health care discussions? Was it done to hide what was being discussed or was it done to dial back the rhetoric so intelligent discussion could be achieved?
I wasn’t thrilled about it, so I guess I felt about the same as I did when Cheney was having his meetings with oil execs to write the Nation’s energy policy and then refused to give ANY information about what was discussed in these meetings.
in answer to your question…I doubt it was to hide what was being discussed, as it all came out anyway, but I can see the logic in doing it to dial back the rhetoric. Persoanlly, I would have loved to have seen members from both parties invited to participate, although I am cerain the reason they weren’t is because NO ONE from the right was even willing to discuss the matter, other than to oppose it.
2 – How do the posters feel about President Obama promising “lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House” then appointing several in his first few days of office? Was this a broken promise – one he never intended to keep but sounded good to the voters, or was it a case of the lobbyists being truly the best person for the job?
Good quest, and one that has been answered. Remember, while there are people who have served as lobbyists in the past currently working for the Obama administration, NOT ONE OF THEM is working in a department or area where they previously had any influence or position. In othewords, they are good, effective, capable managers, but are not working in a department where there would be any possibility of undue influence or a conflict of interest. For instance, we no longer have a former head of a service-based corporation giving BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in no-bid contracts to that same corporation, which is, by the by, still paying him.
3 – What about his promise that if the congress passed the stimulus bill, unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8% but that if they didn’t, it would be catastrophic? Was it a case of bad information from his cabinet and advisors or was it a subtle way to raise taxes by appearing to react to an emergency or evidence that even the President can’t “control” every aspect of the economy?
I think it was, as has been stated by members of both parties in both houses of Congress, a case where no one really realized just how horrific the ecconomic and thus the unemployment situation had become. Ther hadn’t been this bad a financial / ecconomic situation in this country since Woodrow Wilson was president.
I truly don’t know the answers to these questions, nor do I believe anyone here has the real answers, only Pres. Obama would truly know what he was thinking, but I am interested in intelligent discussion and opinions on the subjects. I’m worried about our economy and our future. We have an election coming up in a few months and I believe in trying to be informed. I think there are some posters here who can offer up some information (and unfortunately others who use this site just to sling insults).
I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, I see the only real solution, in two parts, being that:
1. ALL Presidential and Congressional elections become publicly funded. This will eliminate the influence of big business and unions on elected officials and then, maybe for the first time since Lincoln, our elected officials can vote and act upon their conscience, and not that of the providers of the money they need to get re-elected.
2. That ALL taxes, corporate and individual, be permanently reduced to 15% will ALL deductions, loopholes, exemptions, etc., be eliminated. This will give our nation mor emoney than we’d now what to do with, rebuild and improve schools and pay teachers what they are worth (same for law enforcement), roads, fully fund our military, invest billions into a self-sustaining, and a multitude of other programs that would enable ALL Americans to have access to opportunity and eduation.
Of course, these will never happen, because the people who benefit from both most ARE the elected officials, who are the only ones who CAN make these necessary changes.
So, basically, it’s hold on to your hats as best we can, because no one is ever going to get it right…
Sad but true.
Interesting how another guest asked DJ to discuss the hear and now and lay off Bush but only 3 short paragraphs in the Bush bashing came back. DJ you just can’t help yourself can you? Sad son, very sad.
CM…
If you bothered to read my last post (and not just search for items to defend against, you’d see that I did discuss the here and now.
Why is it that you all can get your head around the fact that, in order to fix the problems w have, we NEED to look at the COLOSSAL mistakes that were made by the last administration to make sure we don’t make them again?
And, why is it SO hard for those of you who seemingly support(ed0 Bush to stand up and say, “Hey, he was a horrible President, he was bad for the people of our country AND the world, now let’s make sure we fix his screw ups and get America back to where it was when he took office”?
Why is that such a bad place to begin?
P.S. If it’s true, it’s not bashing.
I believe its a good place to begin DJ, but the fact that you bring it up every single time a political discussion arises makes you look bad. There hasn’t been one President in history that was perfect so stop dwelling on the past and look towards the future.
By the way, none of Obamas promises have come to light and many of them have been broken outright. Wonder why that is and why you refuse to acknowledge them. Take the blinders off DJ and I agree with the others, enough Bush bashing.
And no…..I’m not a Bush supporter.
You know what’s really funny about all of this…
You guys complain that I BUSH BASH, but then that’s ALL you guys do with Obama.
How about practicing what you preach and give the guy at least two years to try and fix what Bush screwed up in 7 years? Is that too much to ask?
You quit Obama Bashing, and I’ll stopBush Bashing?
Fair?
Now, with that said, the first thing that needs to happen to to get Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell out of office.
Each one of them complete idealogues who would rather see the country fall in teh sewer than compromise tobring about the best possible solutions to these problems.
The point is, this is being done right now….in our name….and it DOES EFFECT OUR CURRENT FREEDOMS. If we fall into the trap of protecting or bashing the previous occupant(s) of the Oval Office then the politicians win….we have fallen into the trap of distractions rather than dealing with the present issue. If you support giving a law enforcement entity complete cart blanche from the Constitution and even more preferential treatment than American law enforcement then you have just participated in shredding the Constitution. Keep in mind that liberals who do this and at the same time provide terrorists don’t seem to be acting on principles they seemed to care so much about when Bush was in office. This reflects the real problem with American society…..people don’t think for themselves based on principles, they are led like sheep based on personalities telling them something is either good or bad for them. If you like Bush then you like what he does, even if it screws you–and by the time you find out the real truth it is too late. The same goes for Obama–if you like him he can do no wrong. I have no problem with people supporting either position, but do it based on consistent principles and not personalities. My freedom and your freedom depend on it.
Uh, Bundy, did you ever get around to checking Snopes?
It is NOT happening right now. It does NOT affect (that’s the right word, not ‘effect’) our freedoms… because it isn’t happening! Interpol has never had, nor will ever have, the power to do this, not in just the U.S., but everywhere else in the world that is part of the Interpol system. If you don’t trust Snopes, just do some digging in other places. You can find the interpol charter on the net if you really want to.
But feel free to get all paranoid. They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere! We have met the enemy, and they is us!
Not. We sure have true enemies out there, but interpol is not one of them. Our freedom is not at stake unless we all don’t defend it, and the Democrats are just as adamant about keeping their freedoms as Republicans or teabaggers. Don’t ever doubt that for a second. We are all equally Americans.
As most old-timers here already know, I’m an Obama supporter. Have been, from the first. Do I disagree with some of the positions Obama has taken, and some of the things he has done and said? Hell, yes!
Am I fading in my support of him? Hell, no!
Every President elected for the first time always goes back on some issues, and some promises. When I was still a Republican, I voted for Nixon in 68 on his promise to end Viet Nam. He didn’t get it done, but I still voted for Ford, later on.
None I can think of in the 10 Presidential elections I’ve voted in have been 100% in meeting all their objectives, and many objectives that were reached were most often watered down. I expected no different from Obama.
In fact, if he is not re-elected, that would be no surprise to me. With all the problems he got handed as a newbie, I will be most amazed if he gets them all fixed. I doubt he will, and I’m sure he’ll make more mistakes to come. I just hope none are too serious to be undone.
Untying such a tight, complicated knot of pressing domestic issues while fighting 2 wars is something that no human is going to get done equally well. I’m especially disappointed that Obama didn’t pull us out of Iraq even quicker than he chose to do. And I can only trust his judgment on Afghanistan- that’s what I hired him for, even though I want to see us gone from there asap, too.
I have lots of stuff I’d do differently if I was the Prez, just like you have lots of stuff. But neither of us wanted the job bad enough to run for it, did we?
I planned on being all disillusioned with my Presidential choices in late 2007. That Obama came up on the radar, then won, was a huge surprise for me, and should have been a wake-up call for you. No matter if he serves only one term, because things have changed forever.
Pretty soon, we’ll get a President and a Congress neither of us are going to like because the kids will vote them in, not us old relics of the 20th Century.
So, I’m still sticking with the man I hired, and if he still wants the job in 1012, I’ll decide then if I’m gonna re-hire him.
… and Bundy, my old friend…
You still owe me a strawberry milkshake.
Bundy,
You make one very valid point. Let’s operate on principles. I believe one of, no…THE biggest problem in politics today is that virtually NO politician, Bush, Obama, ANYONE in Congress, you name him/her…they do not operate from a set of principles, they operate in accordance with what they believe will get them elected in their next election.
So what shall these principles be? I think the best place to start is with the Constitution. THESE are the principles we are ALL supposed to follow. BUT…we need to follow them and not twist and turn them according to what we WANT.
I’ll give you a few examples of my take on this and then you can as well and we can go from there…
Example: The Second Amendment.
Supporters of “gun owners rights” seem to choose to ignore the first 13 words (or half) of this Amendment, which states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Now, if the framers had NOT intended this to mean that “so long as the State’s militias ARE necessary to the security of a free state” (which they are clearly not now), why did they include those first 13 words?
States Rights
Strict constructionists claim to believe, to the letter of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
This clearly means that, if it is not expressly given to the Federal government BY the Constitution, or prohibited to the States, BY the Constitution, all laws shall be determined by the several (individual) states.
OK, so tell me where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the right to prohibit gay marriage? Where does it give the federal government the right to ignore the Fourth Amendment and engage in wiretapping the telephone conversations of Americans talking with other Americans within the borders of the United States?
Why is it that conservatives SEEM to believe in smaller government and less power given to that government, EXCEPT when it has to do with a woman’s right to choose, unconstitutional prayer in public schools, consenting actions between two adults, or the “selection” of the President of the United States”?
Example: Insurance, financial, automotive bailout.
I do not believe that anyone in this country thinks the government should be actively engaged in financially supporting businesses that are failing.
It is MY contention however, that there is one principle that overrides this: if our government leaders, by way of their poor judgement, choices and the result of the same CAUSE a situation which could prove catastrophic to the general welfare of the people, then they are REQUIRED, if by no other reason than to correct a mistake and do the right thing, to do what is necessary TO “promote the general welfare”, as proposed in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION.
By way of Executive Order 111708, signed on January 23, 1993, it became legal to again, since the first time since such was made illegal by Executive Order by President Calvin Coolidge, January 27, 1929, to “create and sell, domestically and abroad, financial assets or derivitaves thereof, in a manner below their reasonable or estimated value, without detailed descriptions of the actual value, including but not limied to, any and all incumberances, forfeitures, or diluted assignments”.
What this EO did, was to make it legal for financial institutions to cerate these pretty little packages out of soiled or “bad” assets (i.e. mortgages given to people who had no chance whatsoever of being able to repay them) by not disclosing that they WERE bad assets, and selling them to foreing countries and other financial institutions.
The sale of derivitaves was in large part the cause of the Great Depression of 1929 (which is why the creating and selling of derivitaves were made illegal), and what nearly destroyed our ecconomy in 2007-2008.
It is my contention that, BECAUSE this malady was initiated by a very poor decision by our government’s leader, that our government had the DUTY to step in and help correct the mistake. So, while I disdain the idea of the U.S. owning Chrysler, I believe, in this situation, it was not only warranted, it was the right thing to do.
Ok, Bundy, give me an idea of the principles you believe we should follow and then we can discuss ANY topic you choose.
Principle #1: Get the hell out of my life, and the lives of others.
#2. Let us keep what we make and stop taxing us to death.
#3. See #1….(this goes in a loop, especially until government can demonstrate to me that they don’t screw things up that they touch)……
I am going to go drink some beer now….strawberry milkshakes be damned! lol
Bundy,
A couple of thoughts.
Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Without taxation, how would roads and schools and law enforcement be paid for? How would the wonderful amred forces and inelligence agencies be able to do their jobs protecting us from evil doers?
By your response (and wish to be completely left alone and to not carry any financial responsibility for the society you live in), it is apparent that you do NOT believe or follow or support the Constitution, which in turn (a reasonable person might ascertain) have no true allegiance, faith, or belief in America.
I am thinking you might be happier on some Caribbean island.
Might I suggest Haiti?
Haiti? bad taste DJ.
Not really…my thpought process being that pehaps if he were to go to Haiti right now, he might become a little more in tune with being part of a community and of helping others…
that isolating himself from any participation or responsibility for the world around you is not the optimum way to go through life.
I assure you, I was not meaning to imply anything untoward or distasteful, in any way.
Wow,
My questions sure set off a long discussion! I’m not sure how asking my questions got me the label of a Bush supporter. I went back and read what I said and I still don’t see how someone could come to that conclusion. I thought my questions were fairly presented. I guess what DJ is trying to say is that if anyone has the balls to ask a question which includes Obama that makes them a Bush supporter. Guess what? I’m NOT a Bush supporter. He already served two terms and can’t come back for more. It isn’t expressly stated in the Constitution, but I think I’m still entitled to ask questions of the politicians who are being paid by my tax dollars. Or do we just get to go to the ballot box and then just shut the hell up for the next four or six years? Unless of course you’re a republican. If you’re a republican, the voters can complain about you all they want. Only democrats get a free pass for the entire term. Is that what you’re trying to say, DJ? GAWD, I hope not.
Interestingly, you quoted that very portion of the Constitution that most applies to what we are all asking about. It says “PROMOTE” the general welfare and “PROVIDE” for the common defense. Those two terms are NOT, I repeat, NOT interchangeable, no matter what school the politicians went to. The health care bill, the bailouts, the stimulus, and pretty much every policy being promoted in D.C. right now is an attempt by the beltway bureaucrats to PROVIDE the general welfare. The citizens of this country were not guaranteed that they would be PROVIDED for their entire lives. Good Lord! Is that so hard to understand?
And finally, every high school student knows that the President doesn’t carry all the water. Go back and read the Constitution. We have separation of powers and checks and balances. It’s Congress who passes the taxes and laws. Obama can suggest it and promote it and chearlead for it all he wants. He doesn’t have the power to make it happen. Congress carries that burden/privilege. So I agree with DJ that we have some politicians in D.C. who need to be kicked out on their rear ends. Starting with Reed and Pelosi.
So here’s my next question. If we tax the rich out of their money and give all their money to the poor in 2010, who will we tax in 2011 so the entire population of the United States, citizens or not, don’t have to PROVIDE for themselves?
Dear Another Guest…
For a number of reasons, thank you SO much for your last post.
First off, though there seems to me some misunderstandings on both our parts, you have left the door open for us to make those points clear and move forward. That is so refreshing.
To wit; not only do I not believe that everyone who speaks up against Obama MUST be a Bush supporter, I never considered you one. I meant to speak in generalities and if anything I said came across as lumping you in as a “Bush-specific” poster, I apologize.
And yes, not only do you have the right to ask questions of your elected representatives, but it is our RESPONSIBILITY to do so.
Now, in answer to one of your questions, no one gets a free pass. The only thing I have EVER said, is that, while Bush went for 6 straight years with a Republican Congress and the state of the nation is in a far worse condition than it was when he took office, I believe it is fair and reasonable to give the next man in line at least half that time to correct the massive amount of mistakes and get us back on track.
As for your final question, here is where I need to disagree with you, for a number of reasons, and I will be more than happy to explain them.
1. No one is or has ever suggested we “tax the rich out of their money”. Do you realize that if TOMORROW, the government were to raise the upper level of income tax by five per cent, that would still be 2 per cent less than they were being taxed the last year of the Reagen administratin, during which the upper levels are an eight per cent drop in taxes?
Do you also realize that, of the more than 46,000 individual provisions for personal income tax in the United States Tax Code, that more than 42,000 of them effect and provide benefits for people in the top five per cent of wage earners in our country?
2. Furthermore, no one EVER suggested anyone “giving” a bunch of money to the poor. That is something one is likely to hear on talk radio or from Conservative talking heads, but have you EVER seen a bill that stated that money was to be taken from the rich and given to the poor? No, of course you haven’t.
Now, it seems reasonable to assume that such a comment might stem from one of two particular hot topics of the day…the stimulus packages introduced by Bush and continued by Obama, or the Heath Care Reform Act, attempting to make available some type of affordable basic health care coverage for all Americans. Let’s look first at the stimulus packages.
When enacted by President Bush, the majority of the stimulus package was to “bail out” AIG and a few other very large financial corporations who, because of their largesse and octupi-like integration into all forms and areas of our financial system, had they gone under, our antire financial system, within our borders and world-wide would have collapsed. This is the massively majority opinion of conservative and progressive financial experts alike. Though I loathe our nation having to be put into a situation where it was necessary for the tax payers to bail out companies for bad decisions, objectively speaking, for the good of the majority, it was the best option. The only thing wrong with it, it that Bush never put in any “pay-back” or restrictive provisions, to make sure the tax payers (you and I) got our money back or that similar bad decisions were not repeated.
When Obama came into office, he made a few very basic changes.
* That there would be an overseer for companies who took bail out funds, restricting the amount of executive pay, drastically reducing the perks and extras for those companies.
* As part of a repayment plan, the government (taxpayers) would temporarily own majority shares of companies that accepted funds, which would be held until the loans were paid back.
To this point, ALL but 11% of TARP Funds to financial institutions made available by the Obama administration have been paid back…with interest. This means, the government did not TAKE money from the Treasury and increase the debt, but rather, we MADE money and reduced the debt.
For the remaining 11% of TARP Funds which went to financial institutions, beginning immediately (as of Tuesday last), ALL financial institutions wil lbe charged a substantial fee for loans made withthe TARP Funds and will be assessed those fees until every penny of their loans are repaid…with interest.
Furthermore, and also effective immediately, a TARP TAX of 58% is being assessed on ALL Bonuses to employees of financial institutions that received TARP Funding, and will continue to be assessed until every penny of those funds have been repaid…with interest.
Sadly, the 1.3 trillion dollars that initially went to AIG, Chase, BofA and Merril Lynch will take longer to recoup, but with the palns implemented by the current administration, they will be recouped.
My point in all this is that, the American people are being fed a ton of tall tales by the opposition and have many people believing exactly what you stated; that the rich are being taxed out of their money and the poor are driving around in Cadillacs and eating filet mignon every night, and that’s just not true.
Now, are there abuses in the welfare system? You betcha. Just as there are in the farm and tobacco and oil and pharmaceutical subsidies programs. I say get tough, get in and clean them up. Personally, I think we should re-enact the Clinton Welfare to Work Act of 1995, which was eliminated by executive Order by W (not bashing here guys, these are the facts).
What Clinton did, with the help of a Republican Congress and Senate, is implement restrictions on welfare. Bottom line was basically…”You have five years to get job training or additional education and find gainful employment”. After five years, the American people are done funding your sit-on-the-couch lifestyle. Guess what? Within three years, the Wefare rolls dropped almost 600 billion dollars a year and the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest peacetime level since BEFORE the Great Depression of 1929.
To close this post, I will AGAIN suggest the one (ONLY in my mind) solution to allof this…
Change the US Tax Code to a one page, flat tax of 15%, eliminating ALL tax deferrals, exemptions, and deductions.
This will have EVERYONE (individuals making over $19,000 and corproations) paying their fair share, eliminate the debt and allow us to make all Federal elections publicly funded, thereby eliminating the corruption in Washington D.C. and aloowing our elected representatives, for the first time since before Lincoln, to actually do their job, vote their conscience and represent their constituents.
Ok Bubba…bring it on!
DJ,
You contradict yourself. Here’s your exact words:
Post 6: Dear Another Guest “You are to be commended for your vigorous support of the worst President this country has ever known. I can only hope you will reasonably give the current President the same amount of time to fix the mess he left us. ”
Post 22: Dear Another Guest: “not only do I not believe that everyone who speaks up against Obama MUST be a Bush supporter, I never considered you one.”
It’s a shame you can’t just talk about the issues without taking potshots at me when you do not know me and know nothing about me. You bring up some excellent points, then they get lost when you succumb to the irresistible urge to take a shot at me. Low blow, my friend, and your own words sink your ship. However, I will be happy to discuss the issues. Kangaroo Court brought up an interesting point. You claim to be supportive of Obama and yet also admit not all of his promises have come to fruition. Good for you. Sincerely. You were right when you said he should be given some time to fix the problems he inherited (which were not all, btw, Bush issues – he inherited Osama bin laden from Clinton). How much time should he get? You admit he is a newbie. Did you realize when you voted for him that his newbie-ness (cool word) might make it harder for him? So how much time should he get to fix the problems? Three years? Six years? I take it you still have a job, so can you concede it might be a little easier for you to wait than it is for the millions who have lost their job? You admit he hasn’t fulfilled all his campaign promises. Can you name one he did keep? Something with a little more substance than his promise to his children he would get them a dog. I am sincere in my efforts to be fair to him, but I am also struggling with that fairness. Do you feel his focus on health care has been too consuming of his time? That’s the accusation ( not from me ) that has been made as a result of the Christmas Day attempted bombing. Weren’t there campaign promises about security? NO!!!! I am not blaming him for that incident, but when he said the focus as to security would be forward looking, then takes office and demands that criminal investigations of the former CIA interrogators start immediately, that would seem to me to be backward looking. Yes, I know, we have to see where mistakes happen to avoid making them again, but I don’t see that as the issue here, I see it as Obama trying to bash Bush. I also flatly don’t agree that the Christmas Day bomber should be in civilian criminal courts rather than military tribunals. The guy is giving up valuable intelligence and Obama has the interrogators stop questioning him and give him an attorney. I am a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of civil rights, but when this goof ball took up arms against our citizens, it became a war crime, not a mugging at Central Park. He was in office for nearly a year, but when this incident took place, his position was to blame Bush’s policies. How much time does he need to make changes in our security protocols? He’s had a year. The Christmas Day bomber told his interrogators there were like 20 more similar attacks pending, then Obama gave him an attorney so we don’t know any more than that. Do we wait another year? It seems that during the year he was in office, he should have been able to make at least a few changes to the security protocols, but if he’s blaming Bush policies, then he is, to me, saying he hasn’t made any, but he’ll start now. How much time, now that we know there are at least 20 more of these bombings being planned, do we give him to put his mark on those security protocols? Do we still leave national security behind the health care plan? I wonder how the people on the next airliner are going to feel about that.
I honestly realize he can’t fix everything by his first Friday in office, although I hope you will admit that is essentially what he did promise. He made it clear that our problems were serious, but also repeatedly said they weren’t that difficult to fix and that he had all the answers. He has a fillibuster proof congress, and yet the problems aren’t fixed. When one of these problems bites him in the rear end, he blames Bush. Okay, let’s take it from your perspective: it’s Bush’s fault. All of it. And Obama has all the answers. Every one of them. Bush was the most awful president in our history and Obama is the next-best thing to the second coming of Christ. Now, how long does he get to keep his promises that the problems are serious but the answers are easy. The voters took him at his word and gave him everything he needed. Their tax dollars, free access to a printing press to print more, a fillibuster proof Congress. What else does he need and how much time do we give him? You asked me to give him a reasonable amount of time. How long is that? Can you accept that he might not be able to fix it? If he can’t, how long do we wait and what would be the sign that it wasn’t working?
I am one of those crazy independent voters, DJ. I believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and civil rights. I don’t fit in either camp. Don’t lump me in with Bush supporters. I do not wander around starry-eyed in absolute support of the person in office. I try to look at the issue. I believe that each president has given us something and failed us as well, but on the issues. Reagan turned the economy around, lowered taxes and also gave us Iran-Contra. Carter is more of an enigma. His congress didn’t like him and I don’t think he got the chance to do as much good as he could have. Clinton gave us welfare reform, but it was enacted by a Republican congress, and I don’t care to give him all the credit. He also gave us Monica. That’s why reasonable people look to the issues, not the man.
I await your response. Can you formulate one without attacking me personally rather than discuss the issues with me? I am sincere in my desire to see where we should be heading. I don’t like a fillibuster proof congress, but I see nothing but partisan stonewalling if we turn Congress back over to the Republicans. I also don’t like the idea of one party having absolute control over the entire three corners of our government. It invites disaster and negates our checks and balances system. It appears to me that if we leave things as they are, absolute Democrat control, things are going to happen which we wish would not, but if we split it up, nothing will get done. What’s the answer?
I do like your idea of the flat tax, but I doubt they’ll ever get that through. You were spot on when you said politicians vote in ways that will get them re-elected. Primarily democrats, but some republicans too, pander to the poor. Poor people like to hear that the rich will pay their taxes for them. They already do. Where does Earned Income Credit come from? It’s tax dollars collected from the rich and given to the poor. The health care bill contains a bazillion tax credit loopholes and tax credits for the poor who supposedly can’t pay their insurance premiums. Where will the insurance premiums come from? The rich.
DJ, you do appear to have legal training. Do you think the health care bill will stand constitutional scrutiny? First, it appears to be a tax imposed for existing. Is that legal? What about making Idahoans pony up the premiums for Nebraskans? I don’t like the idea of having to pay in my tax dollars in Idaho so Nebraskans don’t have to pay. But I do like the concept. If we can get the Republican party back into dominancy in Congress, could we convince one of our senators to propose a bill that Idahoans are exempt from paying federal taxes and have, oh I don’t know, the folks from say New Mexico pay our federal income taxes for us? Have our guys been around long enough for us to have an exalted enough position in the congress to make that happen? Do unfunded mandates stand up to constitutional scrutiny? They’ve been doing it for decades, in schooling, immigration, transportation and other areas and now health care. Why can’t the federal government see that passing a flat line medicaid limit for the states does not take into account that it costs a darn sight more to live in Manhattan than it does to live in say Rigby. Shouldn’t the states be allowed to decide what the medicaid limit should be for their own state? When the feds raise the limit, it passes on the medicaid costs to the state but doesn’t give them the money to pay the increased costs. Is that legal? I truly don’t know, but it just seems to me it would be more efficient to come up with a health care bill that won’t spend years in litigation over constitutionality. Obama says our health care is in crisis, and it is, but the solutions on the table in congress won’t give us relief for years and years. Is there another way? Tort reform? Purchasing power and competition across state lines? Didn’t Massachusetts pass something similar to the health care bill a few years back that has turned into a screaming nightmare in costs and Texas pass tort reform and competition across state lines which is reducing costs?
Now THIS is going to be a good day!
First, Other Guest, let me asy thank you, for such an incredibly well thought out, sincere, and productive-looking post. THIS is how reasonable solutions are reached and meaningful, substantive compromise is attained.
Secondly, please accept my apology. I went back and re-read the previous posts and I did in fact lump you in as a Bush supporter. My bad for jumping to a conclusion based on the manner in which I perceived your comments.
That said, let’s talk…
First, I won’t even go into discussing Bush inheriting bin Laden, because he neve really dealt with that inheritance.
So let’s discuss your first question…How long should he be given to fix a given problem?
I believe that depends of the problem. I ABHOR any indeal-driven stance that does not take into account the reality of a given situation. Fir instance, yes, I wanted to have us out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible. But I HATE this idiot liberalzealots who wanted us out on January 21, just….because. with no regard for the safety of our troops or the people who would be left behind. Rightly or wrongly, we made that mess over there and it is OUR responsibility to clean it up before we go.
The ecconomy has shown definite signs of imporvement; some of which may have come along anyway, but more (I believe0 that were and continue to be spurred on by the intiiatives and decisions the Obama admin has made.
You state that it may be easier for me to wait for the ecconomy to turn around than for the millions who have lost their jobs. That may be true, however, while not an ecconomist, I can state without hesitattion that, the VAST majority of those jobs were lost as a direct result of the decisions made by the previous adminisration and because of that, I will give almost any proposed solution a chance, providing it opposes the foolish steps that got us here in the first place.
I SWEAR to you…I am NOT trying to Bush Bash here, but I am compelled to call a spade a spade, and by and large, the guy was an idiot. I say that only because I am hard pressed to come up with ONE domestic policy (or foreign policy outside of AIDS relief for Africa) that succeeded.
No Child Left Behind-not funded and failed.
Response to 9-11….didn’t and failed.
Ecconomy/Jobs/Increasing OUR Manufacturing Base
Failed…Failed…Failed.
(And please don’t say that we haven’t been attacked since 9-11 without acknowledging that we WERE attacked ON 9-11 and…he was warned).
The reason I am compelled to list these things is that you asked how long he should get to fix them and my immediate response is to say “Take a look at just how much there IS to fix!”.
Now, let’s clean up a few misnomes you tossed out here for a second. Obama NEVER said he had all the answers. If you can find a published text of ANY speech that said so (and ALL of his speeches are available online) please shoot me the link. When asked about specific problems, he did give his answers as to how he would address them, and I believe that he is doing so, inasmuch as he is able (you are correct, the Congress does have the most power in such things, and frankly THIS congress (BOTH houses, led by incompetitents) has hurt hias efforts more than it has helped them. And while he did make a statement in the Convention Speech that “this will be easy to fix” (referring to the ecconomy), I believe the context was meaning that the solution does not take a stadium full of rocket sciences to figure out. He then went on to list the “no-brainer” steps, the first of which was to reign in the financial houses who grossly abused the opportunities Bush gave them his first week in office (which Obama did), make a stimulus package available to recommit blue collar businesses to putting people back to work (which he did), getting the Fed to reinvigorize the ecconomy by helping banks to keep loan rates low BUT making sure the institutions followed strict and safe lending practices (whichhe also did).
I also believe that Obama, like just about every other ecconomist from both sides of the idealogical spectrum agree, the ecconomy was MUCH worse off than ANYONE could have forseen.
Next up…yes, I knew full well that having a newbie in the Oval would be a tougher road to hoe FOR THAT NEWBIE. But then, I was not concerned about how tough it would be for him. What was important for me was that we get absolutely as far away from the ideal-driven vs. reality-driven policies that got us into this mess in teh first place.
Was it the less of two evils? Given the overpowering and debilitating presence of the two major political parties today, perhaps so (although I do like Obama as a man, enough to give him at LEAST the respect of the office long enough to make his own boat adn see if it sinks or swims).
I am not giving Clinton ALL the credit for the Welfare Reform Act. Just the credit for knowing it was the right thing to do (against the loud objections of his party) and the wisdom to use the Republican Congress to get it done. He still had to sign it to make it a law.
Oh, and for the record…while it was a despicable series of behaviors that did tarnish the grandeur of the office, Clinton did NOT give us Monica. That all came about as part of the SOLELY PARTISAN, whoilly unnecessary, borderline illegal Whitewater Investigation that a three-member, all conservative panel of federal judges (ALL nominated by Reagan) through out of court for insuifficient evidence TWO YEARS before Monica moved to Washington. It was wrong, but had it not for the partisan republicans who wanted to “get” Clinton, none of that ever would have come to light and in truth, only effected his ability to do his job because it did come to light.
i dismiss Clinton for that being out inthe public eye due to partisan politics the same as I did and do President Bush having been “cajoled by his daddy” and then shirking his duties in the National Guard during the Viet Nam war. Had Bush never run for office and had the Democrats not dug it up for political points, we never would have known and it did not effect his performance in office.
Ok, now let’s look at Health care…
This is an excellent example of why my solution is the perfect answer to many if not all of our nation’s ills.
The Republicans say that “tort reform” is the magic bullet, and if doctors are spared the ridiculous costs (and they are!) of legal protection then they will pass the costs down to the consumer and all will be right with the world. That when this happens, the angelic insurance companies will then lower their rates, because they are more interested in personal service than in making a profit.
Democrats say that it’s the over-priced medical costs and non-competitive insurance markets that make health care coverage unaffordable for more than 40 million Americans, and if we slash the costs doctors charge for an ace bandage ($30) or that hospitals charge for a Tylenol ($12), everyone will be able to afford health care.
Interesting isn’t it, how it is the Insurance, Medical and Pharmaceutical companies who fund the Republicans, and the lawyers who fund the Democrats?
In all honesty, BOTH sides are right, to an extent. This is where compromise comes in…yes, there needs to be exensive tort reform. I suggest that we continue to allow juries to award actual and punitive damages for malpractice, but that attorneys can only collect a fee of nore more than 30% OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGES for their service and that after actuary fees determined reasonable for continued care and replacement of wages (real and possible in the future) are paid, the remainder of the sinful amounts be paid by the doctors (not insurance) on an annual rate, but be paid to the government to help pay for Universal Healthcoverage for those who can not afford premiums. This will keep lawyers from trying to run up totals (because they aren’t going to benefit from it, and lower physicians insurance because they will not have to pay out these largesse amounts.
Purchasing power and portability (across state lines) is also much needed. In fact, if we had those two things (read: true competition for insurance) rates would drop dramatically and we wouldn’t NEED Universal C9overeage…we’d already have it!
This brings me to the basic no-brainer solution to this and most every other malady w have today.
Tax Reform.
It goes like this…
Drop EVERYONE: individuals (making under $19,000 a year) and Corporations (business entities with more than 100 employees) to a flat, 15% rate. Small businesses will pay a 10% rate (adjusted because more than 60% of all jobs are from small businesses, and the government will recoup the difference in the individual income taxes from their employees). ALL deductions, exemptions, and set-asides will be eliminated, because with high-end tax payers and corporations no longer having tax-free “outs”, we can now not only afford to fund Universal Health Care, AND Education, AND Police and Firefighters, AND the military, AND cancer and AIDS research, AND alternative energies, AND transportation, etc., etc., etc…but we can also now make ALL Federal campaigns (Presidential, Senate and Congressional) FULLY PUBLICLY FUNDED.
THIS will mean that, for the first time since Lincoln, our representatives can focus on respresenting their constituents instead of raising $10,000 a week just to get re-elected. This takes the inlfuence out of the lobbyists on K street and back into the hands of the people.
Where it should have always been.
In my oh so humble opinion….THAT is the answer.
I could and would give you my opinions on the constitutionality of any of the items you mentioned, but the hard, stone-cold fact is, there are nine people who make that decision. It will NEVER be up for argument, NEVER be anything we the people can do about it. Their decisions are sacrosanct and, that’s as is should be.
Do I agree with every decision this bench has made? No.
Fact is, I don’t know there has been a bench in the 40-some odd years (since the Warren Court) that I have been paying attention, that there has ever been a court I always agreed with. And I like that.
I don’t want EVERYTHING to be my way. I am human and therefore flawed, so I make mistakes and I am certain some of my opinions are so screwed up and wrong, I am glad there is a group of learned people to make them for me.
My only comment here is that, I do believe that, like the rest of our nation, even our highest court, that small group of legal scholars who have taken an oath to be explicitly impartial and free from personal influence, often make decisions based purely on idealogy and not the individual circumstances of a case.
But, to borrow from Churchill…
“It’s the worst system in the world…except for all the others’.
Hey, thanks for answering, although I still don’t feel I got an answer to my question, not directly at least. So, in keeping with your response, here we go.
Yes, Bush did inherit Osama bin laden from Clinton. Bush might not have done anything about him, but then neither did Clinton, and neither has Obama. The extra troops in Afghanistan are a red herring. Osama is not in Afghanistan, by all accounts. I don’t have a solution to that problem and am not casting aspersions. My solution would be akin to having every soldier available lock arms, march across Pakistan and root the raghead out. (I have military family members – bit of a sore subject for me) There are problems with that solution as well. I’m just saying, Osama is being passed from admin to admin and no one is really doing anything about him. Prosecuting CIA interrogators doesn’t seem a productive solution to me. We need to be out of Iraq too, and I am not privy to the info which would tell us when the right time for that would be. There’s a point where the locals need to step up to the plate, kinda like the revolutionary war here in America. We asked for help but we didn’t expect the French and everybody else in the world to fight the war for us. Sad, that most Americans and world citizens have lost the ideal that a man (person) is responsible for himself and far too many, the majority are wandering around with their hand out expecting someone else to do the work.
It is my opinion the economy would improve on its own, and faster, if the government would just get out of the way. History has shown the depression would not have lasted as long as it did if the government hadn’t interfered by about three years.
No child left behind – what a disaster, but good intentions. Sound familiar? (Think health care bill) Unfunded mandates, no consideration for different cultures, cost of living, etc., etc., but then again, the feds shouldn’t be involved in decisions best left to the states.
Yes, we were attacked on 9/11. Wasn’t that just a few months after Bush took office? During his first year? Double standard? Obama shouldn’t be held accountable for mistakes and shortcomings in his first year but Bush should? Hmm. They were both warned. Maybe Bush just didn’t think it was as bad as it turned out to be. I wonder…
Obama reigned in the financial houses? We disagree on that point. They “reigned in” themselves by predatory lending practices which caused them to go broke. Wasn’t it Barney Frank who led the charge opposing Bush’s call for regulations on the banking industry? And that’s kind of back to my point. No one made those people sign loans they knew they couldn’t make the payments on. Once again, it’s the handout. “I did this and now the government needs to fix it. Don’t let them take my house. Let me live here for months and months without making the payments I agreed to make.” When I bought my last house, I had the loan broker trying to sell me more house than I could afford on a variable rate that sounded real good in the beginning but in a couple of years – LOOKOUT! I said no. For those who didn’t, well why do I as a taxpayer have to take care of both the bank and the idiot who bought more house than he could afford at the same time I’m trying to take care of myself? I see myself and others like me being punished for doing the right thing in order to save the ones who did the wrong thing.
Obama did not use the stimulus package to put blue collar workers back to work. Name one. Gave money to Detroit and they still closed plants. Gave money to the banks and they still won’t lend anyone any money and are taking the biggest bonuses in their history. Those bonuses are NOT the government’s business. If the stockholders don’t want them taking those kinds of bonuses, it’s up to them to vote on it. Where will that kind of thing stop? Give government an inch and it takes ten miles. If we allow them to set the bonuses for CEOs, they’re going to start setting all our wages. The feds have no business involving themselves in private business. Worker safety is a different matter, but once again, let the gov’t get involved and you’ve got OSHA. May heaven help us.
I don’t know if Obama was the lesser of two evils. I have no opinion on that matter. I assume you’re talking about McCain? He sold his party out to pander to special interests, but then, so did Obama. It’s all about getting elected and re-elected. That’s why Perot made such a good run for office. He actually gave us a choice and the sheep we call voters couldn’t see their way clear to voting outside their party lines. (I’m not expressing an opinion on how Perot would have done in office, only that for once, we had an option which was NOT the lesser of two evils.)
Clinton? Yes, he did give us Monica. If he had kept his pants zipped up, there would have been nothing for anyone to attack. That’s such a weird issue. There’s a reason why they call him Slick Willy. And not because of having sex with Monica. I don’t always subscribe to the theory that where there’s smoke there’s fire, but I don’t trust Bill or Hillary. They call him that because no one could make anything stick and some of what the investigators were pursuing was probably made up but I don’t believe it all was. The smartest thing Clinton did was stay the heck out of the way. He didn’t pursue much of anything in the way of policy during his terms. He stayed out of the way. That worked and didn’t. We had welfare reform and other things which helped the country and he didn’t do anything about Osama either which ultimately hurt us and caused Bush to be blamed for Clinton’s failure to act.
Your tax reform and tort reform are interesting. My feelings about tort reform don’t extend to making the doctor pay punitive damages because punitive damages are awarded even when the doctor made an honest mistake. If we have the right to buy comprehensive and collision insurance to protect ourselves when we make an honest driving error, a doctor should be allowed to buy malpractice insurance for the same reason. I agree with your idea that the payout should be actual damages to the injured, and the punitive damages into a health care fund which would fund care for the indigent. Again, keep the darn gov’t out of it. The hospital can administer the trust fund with tight controls on verifying ability to pay.
I lost you a little bit on the tax reform. Sounds like you’re saying the government should get out of the way and let businesses hire people and through the wages send taxes back to the govt. That’s contrary, in my opinion, to what you said before. It sounded earlier like you wanted the govt to be the employer for everybody. Isn’t healthcare like nearly 20% of the economy. If all healthcare workers are employed by the govt, and they will be if Obama’s health care package is passed, then we have too many people working for the gov’t. When was the last time you felt like a gov’t employee had initiative? They’re not all bad, don’t get me wrong, but capitalism is largely what drives the desire to invent and create. I doubt Bill Gates would have become who he was if he had been hired by the gov’t instead of working out of his garage, determined to achieve more for himself. You do know, don’t you, that any invention of a gov’t employee becomes the property of the gov’t? They just get their hourly wage. What possible incentive could there be to invent something that would put you out of your job?
So those were great points, and I think I have responded to them, but you did not answer my question. How long does he get to show he can do it? When will we know he’s succeeding or failing and how will we know? Of course, he needs longer than 11 months, but then Bush got blamed for 9/11 and he only had 7 1/2 months. Obama said if we passed the stimulus, unemployment would not rise above 8%. Now I realize that you feel he couldn’t have possibly known how bad things were, but wasn’t that what his campaign was all about – “things couldn’t be any worse than they are.” It’s at 10% now, and 17% if you adjust for those who gave up looking. Does he need another six months or six years? I know you can’t nail it down to January 21st, but shouldn’t we have some idea what we’re looking for and when we think we’ve waited long enough?
Ah, the Supreme Court. Those hallowed halls. You’re right that they are too idealogical. How could they be otherwise. I didn’t like Sotomayer because I think she pandered to the masses when she said she would present the Hispanic female point of view and then to congress when she testified she wouldn’t just to get appointed. I do give her credit for being the one justice who appears to have had to actually work for a living. The bad thing is that those nine individuals, oath or not, don’t know what it’s like to live on the streets we do. They all went to Ivy League schools and just don’t have a clue about how hard a man has to work when he only went to ISU. Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, went to Harvard, Stevens went to Northwestern, Thomas, Sotomayer and Alito went to Yale. We can’t all go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale or Northwestern. Some of us are just as intelligent as they are, but were not born with a silver spoon in our mouths. I doubt seriously that any of these privileged elite were ever dogged by a local bad-ass cop who just didn’t like the way their hair was cut. If they had been, they wouldn’t tend to be so conservative about civil rights. And if they are so ethically applying the law to the cases before them, why are there so many 5-4 decisions? Like you, I don’t always agree. And thankfully, issues arise which give them reason to re-think or re-balance a previous decision. There have been a couple of whoppers this year even. Adding Gant to balance out Chimel and Belton, don’t you think? Of course, by the time the health care issue gets to the Supreme Court, we’ll have a whole bunch of different faces, won’t we?
The fact is, there are about 5% of the people on one far end of the spectrum and about 5% on the other far end, and they’re screaming and hollering so loud that the 90% of us who are in the middle and willing to compromise can’t seem to be heard on any issue.
Thanks for the discussion, DJ. You’ve given me some things to think about.
OK…this is good, though we are, I think, getting a little bit jumbled still. Perhaps we can space the seperate topics a little to instill a little order.
BIN LADEN
Let’s be clear…by your way of putting it, every President since Truman has passed bin Laden to the next. The fact of the matter is, bin Laden had not been responsible for an attack on the US until Bush, and Clinton not only ordered bombing raids on where he was believed to be several times, but he also pesonally and through channels, warned Bush about him and his group being of a mind to attack the US. This in addition to the constant morning briefings Bush received up to and including August 11, 2001.
As for Obama not doing anything about him, I am sorry but I am smelling a large whiff of partisanship here. He has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan, has ordered another troop incerase for later this year, and with regards to bin Laden not being in Afghanistan…we know that. But Afghanistan is the best, safest, and strategically superior from which to base our troops, or so thinks the CIC of the theater. (I agre on it being a sore subject. My son was in Irawq for two tours and expects to be in Afghanistan within a year).
PROSECUTING CIA INTERROGATORS
This is a double edged sword for me. I believe we need to support our men and women in all branches of service.
I have however, been asking myself, more often than I ever thought I would over the course of the last 6 or 7 years…Aren’t we the guys who are supposed to do it better and the “right way”? Aren’t we supposed to lead by example? Aren’t we supposed to be the world’s leaders?
If the answer to any of those questions is “Yes” (and I believe they all are), then one of the largest jobs President Obama has on his plate, is restoring the respect the world once had for this Nation. Frankly, and with all due respect to the men and women who serve, the civilian leaders of our armed forces during the Iraq war required our men and women to act like a bunch of thugs; the kids withthe biggest stick on the block who could bully around anyone they wanted to. When President Bush left office, that was exactly the way most of the world saw us.
So, if holding our men and women accountable for their actions (although I believe that should start at the top, not in the field) is the right thing to do, which I believe it is, then so be it. You may not see it as productive, but I see it as a very important part of regaining the high ground and the respect of our allies and opponents alike.
THE IRAQ WAR
Very quickly, you compared the Iraq War with the Revolutionary War, siting that while we may have asked teh French for assistance in bottling up the coast, we never asked (or expected them) to fight the entire war for us.
Only one problem with that analogy. NO ONE in Iraq asked us for our help. That “war’ was started under false pretenses, the ideal that they would welcome us as liberators was one of many falsehoods (along with WMD, ties to 911, etc.) perpetrated on the American people to make us believe we were needed and welcomed over there, but we were not. They are not asking us to fight the war for them, the VAST majority of people in Iraq want us the hell out. No one seems willing to accept the fact that the Suni/Shiite war in Iraq has been going on for 2500 years, and for Bush and Co. to believe they could go over and “shock and awe” their way to an end of it was not only arrogant, but stupid beyond belief.
You made comments about responsibility. With regards to this war, the only people who were not responsible were the people who started it.
THE ECCONOMY
I would be interested to hear how yo uthink the ecconomy would have improved on its own and faster than it already has without any stimulus help.
While apporx. 15,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry, most ecconomists believe that, including peripheral industries such as parts, repair, parts manufacturing, repair mechanics, etc., would have been lost had we ignored their financial troubles and “let nature take its course”. Add to that the larger drain on the welfare/unemployment insurance resources, more real estate forclosures, credit card debt enhancements and account closures, and it is widely held by experts of all idealogical viewpoints that their collapse would have been the straw and we would have experienced another depression.
Do I believe that it was handled 100 per cent correctly? No. Is it 100% better than it was or would have been if nothing had happened, and is it getting better with each passing day? I very much believe so, and most of the numbers seem to bear me out.
One other thing…you tossed out the most say nothing phrase…”the feds shouldn’t be involved in decisions best left to the States”. I would very much like to hear which decisions you feel would be “better left to the States”…and why. I believe there should be Federal standards that should be required of schools in regards to what a child must know to graduate. However, I believe that how that happens should be left up, not to the States, but to the individual communities…WITH ANNUAL OVERSIGHT. Other than that…I’d love to hear your thoughts.
9-11
Just a few quick points because it’s long past and nothing productive will come out of it…
1. No double standard at all. Apples and oranges. Bush did not head the warnings about binLaden and al-Queda because he didn’t care about them. He wanted into Iraq on day 1 and I fully believe he saw and used 9-11 to achieve what he wanted, not acting whatsoever in the best interests of our Nation by fully going after the people who attacked us.
You said, “Maybe Bush didn’t think it was as bad as it turned out to be”. I apologize if this offends you, but that is something not even Limbaugh or Hannity would dare to say. The fact is, he had s eight-plus months (and two months of pre-innauguration briefings) where he was well informed and had ample opportunities to defend us against the possible attacks. He did nothing.
FINANCIAL HOUSES
Ok, I am lost here. “Reigned in”, means that Obama put some control and ovesight on them, to end those practices that caused their problems. They did not do it themselves. That would be like saying the foxes made sure the hen house was locked up tight. *laughing* I thnk you got a little lost in the wording.
As for your comment about Barney Frank…First off, the “regulations on the banking industry” were about four years shy and largely cosmetic. Congressman Frank’s opposition to them was correct, in that Frank wanted Bush to put more controls on those institutions receiving funds so that bad practices would be stopped, outlandish expenditures would cease and the funds would be paid back. Bush of course, ignored Frank’s warnings and the 1.3 trillion dollars that went to Chase, BofA, Lynch and AIG will only be recouped because of the controls and oversight Obama placed on those institutions after he took office. Frankly, I am amazed you do not FULLY suppoort Obama for that. All it is is getting them to pay back to you and I, the taxpayers, our money they borrowed, that you and I didn’t want them to have in the first place.
I am also surprised as I read over your comment again, that you have such high disdain for the people who took the loans they should never have qualified for in teh first place, but seem to hold no accountability for those greedy lenders who allowed that to happen, knowing what the outcome would be, but wanting those big commission checks. About the poorest example of free market and capitalism I’ve ever seen. They should all be put in jail.
STIMULUS
You asked for blue collar workers who were put to work or whose jobs were saved by the stimulus. We won’t count the million or so jobs that did NOT go under in the automotive industry. In addition to those, you also have road and utility construction workers that literally started working the day it was signed (I’m surprised you don’t recall that, they had it live on tv…less than five minutes after it was signed, the bull dozers fired up), delta and shore workers in San Joaquin County in California and in the deltas of Louisianna, school refits all up and down the plains states, in California, New York, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Maine, New Hampshire (Yeah, I looked some of this up, so don’t think I had it in my head!). There were a lot of people who went back to work, which of course helps a great many areas of the ecconomy, because of the stimulus.
Now, where you say the bonuses are not the government’s business….like heck they’re not! If I have, through making loans to companies, taken a stake in that company, then thos ebonuses ARE my business. ALL of their expenditures and policies of doing business ARE my business, and until I get paid every dime back, plus interest, I will watch them like a hawk. So, for the record…banks ARE starting to lend money again, and except for those banks who have paid every dime (plus interest0 of TARP money back (and those that have can do what they want, because we no longer have a stake in them), NO ONE is getting anything near to a record bonus.
Your comment “if we allow them to set bonuses for CEO’s, they’re going to start setting all our wages”. That’s plain silly and beneath you to even say it. If I didn’t know better, i’d say you cut and pasted that from a neocon website. Unless the government owns your business, they will have no say over your pay. If they DO own your business, then they should have a say.
CLINTON
With due respect, most of that was nonsense, but one comment you made…”Clinton didn’t do anything about Osama (not true, by the way) which ultimately hurt us and caused Bush to get blamed for Clinton’s failure to act”.
That’s total crap. No one blamed Bush for Clinton not acting. Bush was blamed for not doing anything in the 8+ months he had daily warnings. Bush is being blamed for getting 4,000+ American men adn women killed in a war that NEVER shold have happened.
Bush is blamed for a lot of things, but please don’t try and pin the Iraq war on Clinton. That would be embarassing…for you.
HEALTH CARE
I am open to more discussion on your ideas for tort reform, although I find it interesting that, in a commentary where you speak so reverently about personal responsibility, you seem to be looking for ways to help relieve doctors of that very thing. Interesting in deed…
The rest of this section I ignored because you were saying things like I wanted the government to be everybody’s employer. You also state that “all healthcare workers will be employed by the state”. WHAT???
You DO realize, don’t you, that what the govenment was originally trying to do (before Congress – both sides of the aisle – got in and screwed it up) was to help provide affordable health care INSURANCE….no healthcare workers were going to be working for the governement.
IN CLOSING
I agee with some of your thoughts about free enterprise and that the creativity and ingenuity of the American people should be left to the private sector. But no one is trying to end that, so I ‘m not sure where you were coming from, so I just ignored that as well.
By and large you had a couple of good points, but most of what you wrote, and please don’t think I’m bashing here, most of what you wrote there was inaccurate, conservative tripe that made no sense, and a great deal of it had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Government employees inventing things? Where the heck did THAT come from…and why?
Oh well…it was nice while it lasted.
DJ
DJ,
Am loving the discussion, truly, but we’ve expanded it to the point where it’s too unwieldy to answer and I don’t think anyone else wants to join in. May I presume to cherry pick one or two things and after we’ve beaten them to death, with input from our fellow posters, move on?
For example, I found what I believe to be a parallel in the topic of Prosecuting CIA Interrogators and the home loan business. Can we start there? I doubt seriously any of us will ever have full access to what really went on. What I see is interrogators who were given the go-ahead to interrogate in methods that would get you in serious trouble down at the local police house. I understand the law to say that if it’s legal, then even if the law is changed, we can’t go back and punish someone for breaking that NEW law during a time when it was legal under the OLD law. I am not talking about any interrogators who broke the old law and I don’t doubt there were some. The Nuremburg defense doesn’t fly. You can’t blame your superiors. “I was just following orders.” That just doesn’t cut it. Personal responsibility. So, if we’re prosecuting interrogators for violating the old law, then good. If Obama changed the rules, and is trying to prosecute interrogators from the Bush era for breaking rules from the Obama era, that’s wrong. Period.
Home loans. Personal responsibility. Can you take my word for it that no one knows better than I do that a home seeker is under tremendous pressure to buy more house? The realtor, the loan officer, the loan processor, the loan underwriter, the title company, the bank, maybe even the appraiser, all get paid a percentage of the loan amount. So, of course, they all want the home buyer to buy the most expensive house he can qualify for. So, what about personal responsibility? Does it apply only in certain circumstances? It applies to the CIA interrogators but not to the home buyer? Who gets exempted? Who gets held accountable? Who decides? I admit to being a bit disdainful of people who extended themselves beyond their means, but I don’t wish to be thought of us lumping everyone together. The problem with home foreclosures wasn’t just that folks bought more house than they could afford. It was after buying a house in Stonebrook, they wanted the latest model BMW, Cadillac and diesel Dodge 2500 to park in the driveway, a boat in the sideyard, some 4-wheelers and snow machines in the garage, an RV out back, you know, they wanted just plain more! They ran up their credit cards, took out seven-year loans on three cars, another on the boat, a 10-year loan for the RV, wiped out their savings, ran up their credit cards, took out a few signature loans and a checking overdraft, and the world fell apart. It’s just plain hard to say, “Well, gee, Fred, sorry your hours got cut. Here, let me pay double the taxes so the gov’t can buy your business, put you back to work, send out billions so you don’t have to pay your mortgage and credit cards, and I’ll just keep working three jobs to feed my own family over here in Cloverdale and keep my 2001 Kia Sephia running. I won’t tell anyone that you knew your wife was pregnant and wanted to stay home after the baby was born but you used her income to qualify for all the loans on this stuff anyway.” Are there people who didn’t overextend themselves and ended up in trouble because of unexpected illness or job loss? OF COURSE! But when the foolish ones are whining just as loud as the truly injured, if not louder, then it’s hard to sort them out. And I can darn sure guarantee the poor little guy from Cloverdale can’t be heard in Washington! (No offense to Cloverdale) But he might can be heard in Boise. What a novel concept! Deal with it at the state level. There are statutes under which the loan and realtor people can be charged if they were truly criminal in their behavior. Greed isn’t illegal. If it is, then the whole lot of them are guilty, including the home buyer.
Personal responsibility. Yes or no? For everyone? Why or why not?
Well put AnotherGuest.