AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The problem is not that O has failed to explain the financing for health reform. It is that the general public is lazy and ignorant. O has been very explicit on how the reform would be funded. See my comments above. However, while you can teach people, you cannot make them learn. This applies to many on this thread, such as CI.

...I wonder what Ican will say, if the government recoups it's losses on the TARP funds loaned out to banks - as we have already done with much of the money...

Oh I failed to address the cyber attack thing.

What can you find in the Patriot Act that gives the President, or Congress for that matter, unprecedented ability to wag the dog or abuse power on a broad national scale?

bullet 1) Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide “assistance” for lawful activities of any group the government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI) notes that in theory supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/12/2001]
bullet 2) Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found not to have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They need never be given a trial or even a hearing on their status. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]
bullet 3) Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the websites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]
bullet 4) The act “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” [Washington Post, 11/4/2001] It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001]
bullet 5) Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or “suspicious activities” by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term “suspicious” is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report.
bullet 6) Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a library patron’s reading and computer habits (see January 2002). [Village Voice, 2/22/2002] Section 215 allows the FBI to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for an order to obtain documents relating to counterterrorism investigations without meeting the usual standard of legal “probable cause” that a crime may have been committed. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI"see October 9, 2001) says that Section 215 can allow the FBI to “go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone.” Librarians will make Section 215 the centerpiece of their objections to the Patriot Act, arguing that the government can now “sweep up vast amounts of information about people who are not suspected of a crime.” In 2005, one librarian will say, “It reminds me of the Red Scare of the 1950s.” However, some FBI officials find it easier to use provisions of Section 505, which expands the usage of so-called “national security letters” (see November 28, 2001). [Roberts, 2008, pp. 39-40]
bullet 7) The government can refuse to reveal how evidence is collected against a suspected terrorist defendant. [Tampa Tribune, 4/6/2003]
Passes with No Public Debate - The law passes without public debate. [Village Voice, 11/9/2001; Village Voice, 11/26/2001] Even though it ultimately took six weeks to pass the law, there were no hearings or congressional debates. [Salon, 3/24/2003] Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) says: “This was the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen. A bill drafted by a handful of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune from amendment” (see October 2-4, 2001 and October 24, 2001). [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Only 66 congresspeople, and one senator, Feingold, vote against it. Few in Congress are able to read summaries, let alone the fine print, before voting on it. [Los Angeles Times, 10/30/2001] Feingold says, “The new law goes into a lot of areas that have nothing to do with terrorism and have a lot to do with the government and the FBI having a wish list of things they want to do.” [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Supporters of the act point out that some of its provisions will expire in four years, but in fact most provisions will not expire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/2001]

There were several apparently unconstitutional measures in the legislation's 400-odd pages. Section 412 allowed non-U.S. citizens to be detained for a week without charge and for an indefinite period between charging and trial. Section 215 sidestepped the Fourth Amendment by allowing law enforcement to seize "any tangible things" deemed to be part of an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Section 505 authorized administrative subpoenas of personal records without probable cause or judicial oversight. Sections 411 and 802, if read broadly, seemed to imply that political dissent could be considered "domestic terrorism."

Would you be comfortable with a George W. Bush having unilateral power to shut down the Internet and therefore eliminate the only unfiltered means of communication available to the people on a broad scale? Power to shut down the Internet and thus cripple many if not most commerce and industry which is increasingly dependent on the internet? Even our tiny little business is now wholly dependent on the internet to operate. Shut that down and we are unable to do business.

Had an initiative to find ways to develop technology and security to defend from cyber attack been proposed, I would be cheering on the process and initiative and would see that as a very credible use of my tax dollars.

Granting the government unprecedented power to control communications in peacetime is not acceptable to me.

Deficits don't matter.

Unlike you and Thomas, I don't meekly hand the government license to decide what is best for me and trust that they will make good decisions.

I'm going to belive that you're saying that tongue-in-cheek because I like you too much and believe you are too smart to believe that you meant verbatim what you just said.

partially...

You do realize that they are now predicting a $9 trillion - that's trillion with a T deficit over the next 10 years? Do you realize that equals $30,000 for every man woman and child in the USA whether or not they pay taxes? So considering the large number of Americans who pay no federal taxes, you can double or triple or quadruple that for each you and your wife.

another talking point. ya gotta stop watching glenn.

of course no one likes working in the red. but most of us have to. think i'm wrong? did you pay cash for your house or did you take out a 30 year loan? DEFICIT ... however you (and your children) got to sleep indoors.

there is no free lunch. seriously. take a good look around at the country. not just where you live, but the country as a whole. it's getting pretty run down, largely due to 30 years of too many tax cuts, breaks and dismissals. and what money there was has been spent on foreign wars and culture war nonsense.


And that's after you pay your regular taxes just to run the normal government.

i only wish people had taken that view vis the regular taxes/ fed budget only to have bush come back every 15 minutes for another 100 billion dollar supplemental. well, actually, i think the last one was closer to 180 billion dollars.

the part that really perplexes me is how it's really a groovy idea to spend a lot of money making sure iraqi kids get brand new schools, but to want to do the same for american kids is bad. repairing iraqi infrastructure good. repairing american infrastructure bad....

Foxfyre, addressing FreeDuck, wrote:

Unlike you and Thomas, I don't meekly hand the government license to decide what is best for me and trust that they will make good decisions.

Without dignifying this bullshit allegation with an answer, thanks for lumping me together with FreeDuck! I'm a big fan of hers, and always sincerely flattered when people do this.

Foxfyre, addressing FreeDuck, wrote:

Unlike you and Thomas, I don't meekly hand the government license to decide what is best for me and trust that they will make good decisions.

Without dignifying this bullshit allegation with an answer, thanks for lumping me together with FreeDuck! I'm a big fan of hers, and always sincerely flattered when people do this.

...I wonder what Ican will say, if the government recoups it's losses on the TARP funds loaned out to banks - as we have already done with much of the money...

probably complain that the constitution doesn't say that the government can recoup money lent and that Obama MUST be impeached immediately

Most of the TARP funds loaned out to banks has not been recouped. In fact TARP funds continue to be loaned out to banks.

However, whether the TARP funds are eventually fully refunded or not, the federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to lend funds to private organizations or persons. So TARP is unconstitutional.

So all those loans to Veterans to buy homes were unconstitutional. What an argument ican. One that I'm sure you will be able to convince people on when you try to get them to impeach Obama. [/quotes]
NO!
Veterans are retired employees of the federal government . They are not private persons to whom the federal government loaned money.

Quote:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT EMPOWERED BY the Constitution to lend funds to private organizations or persons.