51
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:07 am
@maporsche,
It's incredible how one sided your point of view is. If i had ten bucks for every post which Fox begins with reference to liberal numbnuts, i'd take everyone at this site out for dinner.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:24 am
Quote:
Night of the census taker
(By James Burnett, The Boston Globe, October 18, 2009)

IN THE HIERARCHY of scary-looking devices, the Census Bureau’s new handheld computers fall somewhere below the staple remover, and only a little above the hole punch. The boxy units, about the size of a checkbook, allow the department’s field workers to collect and transmit information electronically, including GPS positions, so houses and apartments get placed in the right location in its records. In early April, when census agents began the address canvassing that is the initial phase of every decennial count, they carried these handhelds for the first time. This milestone initially stirred the same buzz as an Agriculture Department report on projected avocado yields.

But as census canvassers took their handheld computers down city streets and exurban cul-de-sacs and backcountry lanes, something started to happen. “They show up at your house, and you look down, and you ask what they are doing,” says Alex Jones, the syndicated radio host. “And they say, ‘Oh, just getting a GPS reading.’ Regardless of your political affiliation, there’s just something inherently creepy about that.”

Creeped out, people were. Hypotheses flew on right-wing websites and talk radio: The feds wanted the coordinates of American homes in order to facilitate an eventual roundup of dissenters. Or the GPS readings were for when the White House, under the cover of an unspecified calamity, invites in the UN soldiers - who, after all, won’t be able to read American street signs. Or for when the authorities, cutting to the chase, call in unmanned Predator strikes against undesirables.

That’s how it’s gone for the Census Bureau all year. Its objective in the 2010 Census, as it has been going back to the inaugural census in 1790, is to produce the most complete possible accounting of the US population. That goal, never easy to achieve, has in recent decades been complicated by hard-to-count minority and immigrant groups and an increasingly transient general population. This time around it faces the added wild card of hundreds of thousands of people displaced by Hurricane Katrina and the foreclosure crisis.

Now, on top of all that, the bureau is confronting what former director Kenneth Prewitt regards as an “unprecedented” resistance to the census itself. The GPS units are these objectors’ most fantastical bogeyman, but the Census Bureau, just by trying to do its job, has served up several others. Since well before the September death of department field worker Bill Sparkman - found strung from a tree in Kentucky with “Fed” scrawled on his chest - brought the issue to mainstream attention, the critics have been constructing an alternative paradigm, in which the census is not the benign bureaucratic exercise it pretends to be but instead a citizen-tracking, election-manipulating project controlled by Barack Obama, administered by his minions at ACORN, and aimed at advancing the agenda of Big Government while trampling personal freedom.

It can all sound like the plot line for a lost Robert Ludlum novel, and indeed, the anti-census claims are easy to knock down on factual grounds. But the roots of the concerns are genuine, and trace back to the fundamental American conflict between a democratic government’s need for information and citizens’ desire for privacy. Humdrum as it seems, the U.S. Census has always ridden that fault line. Heading into 2010, the question, and it’s not an idle one, is whether we’re merely witnessing a particularly fevered installment of a long-running national debate, or the arrival of a United States where even such a seemingly basic act of government is just another thing that a fractious populace refuses to agree on.

COUNTING PEOPLE IS one of the first jobs America assigned to its young federal government. The Constitution calls for an enumeration of the population every 10 years “in such manner as [Congress] shall by law direct,” and the stakes of that effort are huge. The results determine how many seats states get in the House of Representatives, as well as where a lot of federal money - currently more than $400 billion - gets spent. Over time, Congress has also employed the census to collect figures on everything from home ownership to commuting habits, and use them to shape policy. To the census’s admirers, it qualifies as a singularly potent expression of national ideals. Writing in “The American People,” a book about the 2000 Census, Prewitt put it this way: “As a civic event with the ambition to include every person in the nation, the only such civic event in America’s democracy, the census counts.”

Yet from the beginning, there have also been Americans who’ve wanted nothing to do with it. George Washington, for instance, was miffed that the inaugural census put the population at only 3,929,214 - he’d hoped to break 4 million, knowing that the bigger the number, the stronger the deterrent to would-be attackers. Washington partly blamed the shortfall on residents who’d ducked the process, some citing religious reasons for their non-compliance. As the country, and census tactics, evolved, so too did the grounds for defiance. In 1940, as the US pulled out of the Depression, Congress authorized for the first time asking people how much money respondents earned. “Needless to say,” says the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Margo Anderson, author of “The American Census: A Social History,” “when the public got wind of that, there was a huge debate.” Two decades later, future National Review senior editor William Rickenbacker would earn notoriety, and a $100 fine, for refusing to fill out his long-form questionnaire. (He railed against its intrusiveness in a letter to the secretary of commerce, whom he addressed “Dear Snoopchief.”)

More recently the Census Bureau has triggered political fencing matches over its statistical methods. To compensate for undercounting immigrants and poor members of racial minorities, who disproportionately fail to participate, the agency in 1990 and 2000 sought to use the technique called statistical sampling, which would adjust the “hard count” by consulting a subsequent survey showing how many people had been missed. Both times, those plans were blocked by Republicans worried that such sampling would bolster the size of traditionally Democratic voting blocs.

In a sense, this year’s controversies echo the tradition of protesting the census’s mission. But they are also different, in both form and volume. Thanks to the Internet (and with an assist from partisan broadcasters), the Census Bureau is contending not with individual dissenters, but with a collective and vocal resistance whose arguments challenge the legitimacy of federal census-taking itself.

The movement began to take shape last winter, after President Obama announced his first nominee for commerce secretary, the official to whom the Census Bureau traditionally reports. Obama’s pick, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg, raised alarm among some minority advocates, who noted that Gregg had opposed increases to census funding and could not be trusted to do everything necessary to reduce undercounts. To mollify those critics, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt indicated that for 2010, the census director would now “work closely with White House senior management.” To some census observers - especially those observing from GOP congressional seats - this looked like a power grab, and Gregg mentioned the move when he withdrew from consideration the following week. The Obama team backed off, stressing that the new commerce nominee, former Washington Governor Gary Locke, would oversee the census as usual. But by then, aided by Republican spin, the notion had taken hold: Obama wanted control of the Census, and had put chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel in charge of rigging the 2010 results.

That theory gained momentum on March 18, when Fox News reported that ACORN, the community organizing group beset with voter-registration fraud allegations, had signed on as one of the Census Bureau’s national partners, and would among other things help put out word about the more than 1 million temporary workers the bureau needs to hire to complete next year’s count. Though ACORN would be just one of 100,000 groups expected to come aboard as a census partner, and although its staffers would not be doing any actual canvassing or enumerating themselves, its involvement fed the growing right-wing suspicions.

Such was the atmosphere that the census canvassers and their GPS devices walked into in April. A woman named Jane Lesko, who heads the Idaho chapter of the conservative Eagle Forum, encountered one of the field workers at her rural property. “The woman{hellip}said that her supervisor told them that they could climb locked gates with “NO TRESPASSING” signs on them,” she wrote in the “alert” she subsequently sent out to her members via e-mail. Her missive was picked up by anti-government websites, and before long came to the attention of conservative activist and online radio host Douglas Gibbs, who invited Lesko onto his show and advanced the aforementioned possible UN-soldiers-connection in a post on his blog.

“We’re talking government here,” says Gibbs in an interview. “Why would they want these coordinates? The first answer is to more easily find people. I’m not trying to be a conspiratorialist or anything like that. I’m just asking the question.”As he sees it, once Washington decided it wanted these GPS readings, the way to go about obtaining them was obvious. “People don’t really question the Census Bureau,” he says.

By that logic, it’s the very innocuousness of the 2010 count that makes it suspect. But how to combat such a sneaky enemy? After all, as Lesko points out, now that the government has your GPS position locked in its databanks, it’s not like you can “have it back.”

Over the summer, Representative Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, provided possible recourse, declaring a kind of info-blockade. In June, she told the Washington Times that she planned to answer only the first question on the 2010 form, which asks how many people live at your address. Bachmann claimed, incorrectly, that the Constitution authorized the Census to count people and nothing more. The other queries, she said, were overly intrusive. Later, during an interview with Fox News’s Glenn Beck - who has taken up census concerns as a favorite story - she mentioned that it was census data that aided the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Paranoid thinking, like lint, has a way of balling up with like elements. Eventually everything to do with the 2010 Census started to look like a plot. On Aug. 26, a week before the fracas over President Obama’s back-to-school speech surfaced, USA Today published an article about the Census Bureau’s “Census in Schools” outreach effort, which distributes posters and lesson plans to public schools nationwide in a bid to boost participation.

On her blog, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin offered an alternative take. Her headline: “Meet Obama’s newest Census collectors: Your kids!”

THE CENSUS BUREAU, of course, doesn’t want to scare people. It wants to count them. And it sees its job as to do so by all available means - “by hook or by crook,” says Martha Riche, who preceded Ken Prewitt as bureau director.

Most of the elements of the supposed Obama-led plot to hijack the 2010 Census had their origins long before Obama’s presidency. The handheld computers were approved during the Bush administration in a bid to boost efficiency; the partnership program made controversial this year by ACORN’s involvement was created by Riche prior to the 2000 Census as a cheap way to halt a decline in mail-back rates. It was the same rationale that prompted the bureau that year to start emphasizing that it’s against the law to ignore the census - which, this time around, has only further provoked those wary of government coercion. Census in Schools dates back even farther, and was designed to reach families whose bilingual children are the home’s only English speakers. (And while intrusiveness is very much in the eye of the beholder, next year’s census will be the first in 70 years to omit the long form, which asks finer-graded questions about lifestyle and socioeconomic status.)

Not that pointing any of that out would change the minds of current census critics. Sarah Igo, a Vanderbilt historian who has studied the census as part of her research into perceptions of public surveys, notes that how the bureau’s actions are perceived is always influenced by the broader national mood. “When the data is collected every 10 years,” she says, “attitudes toward the government get projected onto what is ostensibly a non-political agency.” Amid a health care debate that has some Americans worried about bureaucrats inserting themselves between patients and their doctors - and in the wake of an Iraq invasion and massive bank bailout that stirred unease with unchecked Washington power on both sides of the political spectrum - perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the early stages of the 2010 Census have met stubborn pushback.

At the same time, to attribute the resistance to the present political climate might be to overlook the emergence of a more fundamental challenge for the Census Bureau. The agency hasn’t changed how it handles personal information: The paper forms and corresponding electronic records that show how you, as an individual, answered the agency’s questions (the “microdata,” in agency parlance) are sealed for 72 years to maintain privacy and confidentiality. But as the Census Bureau has adopted new tools in pursuit of its mandate - and opponents have gained a powerful tool with the blogosphere - it has inevitably become a bigger and scarier-looking target. In its files, the satellite readings that canvassers collected with their handhelds are paired with addresses, not their occupants’ names - another layer of protection for individuals. That doesn’t sound so reassuring, though, to privacy-minded homeowners who glance outside to see a government worker pointing a GPS device at their door.

It’s less than six months to go before next April 1, Census Day for 2010, the day to which the next national count will be pegged. By then, asks Anderson, the census historian, “Will we have worked ourselves through this debate and made some decisions about how to deal with it?” In her view, it’s too early to say, though precedent does offer census proponents some cause for optimism. For all the debate over the income questions in 1940, ultimately, a compromise was struck - people who felt uncomfortable telling a stranger what they earned would be handed a card on which they could privately enter that information and submit it by mail. What’s more, says Anderson, “When it came down to it most people didn’t mind, and did volunteer the answer to their enumerator.”

While the activists urging defiance of the 2010 Census have one American impulse on their side, those who hope to see everyone counted can play to another. We like being left alone, but perhaps even more, we also like to feel that we count. And in past fights over the census, it’s the latter urge that has won out. “Americans have on balance always come around,” says Anderson, “and been more concerned about getting into the census than getting out of it.”
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  8  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:41 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I do see a difference though in using a general insult like 'numbnuts' and someone specifically insulting an individual person. Maybe I'm wrong and there is no difference; but I feel it is much more crass to insult someone directly.

Maporsche is a conservative. All conservatives are numbnuts.

Now bear in mind, I'm not calling maporsche a numbnut, and anyone who thinks that I'm calling maporsche a numbnut is taking my words out of context. After all, I don't engage in ad hominem arguments, even though conservatives always make ad hominem arguments and they attack me relentlessly and unfairly. But I'm not singling out maporsche for criticism. I don't do that kind of thing.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's prohibiting Republicans from participating? How?

Republicans are prohibited from entering the room where and while the new federal government medical insurance plan is being written by Democrats.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:56 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
He's prohibiting Republicans from participating? How?

Republicans are prohibited from entering the room where and while the new federal government medical insurance plan is being written by Democrats.


Obama is prohibiting them from entering? That is what you alleged.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 12:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Jesus this **** is tedious.
When is the wealth redistribution team scheduled to go over to Ican's house and take his computer away?
God, it can't happen too soon for me . . .

My repetition of evidence that Obama and his wealth REDistributionists are incompetent, shall be repeated until one or more of you wealth REDistribution advocates provides rational rebuttals of that evidence.

"God, it can't happen too soon for me . . . "

Until then, Setanta, you shall continue to find tedious the repetition of truth.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 12:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Obama is prohibiting them from entering? That is what you alleged.

Alas, I should have said that wealth REDistributionists in the federal government are prohibiting Republican members of Congress from "entering." Then I should have said that Obama and the current Congressional Democrat leadership are together leading the wealth REDistributionists in the federal government.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 12:25 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Obama is prohibiting them from entering? That is what you alleged.

Alas, I should have said that wealth REDistributionists in the federal government are prohibiting Republican members of Congress from "entering." Then I should have said that Obama and the current Congressional Democrat leadership are together leading the wealth REDistributionists in the federal government.


More correct.

But; the Republicans will get their chance to vote on the bill and debate, just like normal. The party leadership is not required to include members of the minority party in their internal deliberations, and what more, Republicans in Congress have clearly signaled that they have no desire to be good faith negotiators on the bill, but instead will only attempt to scuttle it by any means possible.

There is no utility in including such a group in negotiations, when you intend for the bill to pass. You should look to the behavior of your own party before criticizing the other side.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:23 pm
@ican711nm,
See, this is why nearly everyone at this site considers you to be a clown. You haven't provided a shred of evidence. Continually asserting that something is true is not at all the same as proving that something is true.

You never provide any evidence, you just shout the same stupidities over and over again--as though if you shout something loudly enough, or often enough, it will become true.

Clown.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:24 pm
@joefromchicago,
Good point Foxf . . . er, Joe . . .
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  6  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:24 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

See, this is why nearly everyone at this site considers you to be a clown. You haven't provided a shred of evidence. Continually asserting that something is true is not at all the same as proving that something is true.

You never provide any evidence, you just shout the same stupidities over and over again--as though if you shout something loudly enough, or often enough, it will become true.

Clown.


Tsk tsk, you're just perpetuating the 'angry liberal' stereotype that some idiots say is driving people away from the site, Set. Rolling Eyes

Remember, instead of treating these fools exactly as they deserve, we're supposed to be 'civil' and engage them in 'productive conversation.' Otherwise we're just ruining A2K or some bullshit.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:26 pm
If you mean that Ican will be out the door hard on the heels of Finn . . . ah, such a consummation, devoutly to be desired . . .
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:35 pm
@Setanta,
You could just ignore him (actually use the ignore feature).

No need to call him a clown. If he is being one; I highly doubt that anyone needs you to point it out as it's probably painfully obvious (if I remember correctly).

All you're actually accomplishing is calling him names. Which is something I would expect more from children, as opposed to intelligent adults.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:40 pm
@maporsche,
You should keep in mind two points:

1, that both Set and I have spent several subjective weeks - totaled - of our lives trying to engage Ican in productive conversation, so it isn't as if we just decided one day that ridicule is the way to go, based on nothing;

and 2, that many of us believe that ignoring those who spew lies and falsehoods and smears against their political opponents is the exact wrong way to deal with such things. It merely creates a space where they feel 'silence is consent' and serves to attract more of their fellow brethren to the thread or argument. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if the people in question were intellectually honest in their arguments, but I haven't found that to be the case.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 02:53 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You never provide any evidence, you just shout the same stupidities over and over again--as though if you shout something loudly enough, or often enough, it will become true.

PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS INCOMPETENT!

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA EMPLOYMENT 1980 - 2009

....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980…… 99,302,000………….. + 7,285,000
Reagan
1984….. 105,005,000…………...+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988….. 114,968,000…………...+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992….. 118,492,000…………...+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996….. 126,708,000…………...+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000….. 136,891,000…………...+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004….. 139,252,000…………...+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008….. 145,362,000…………...+ 6,110,000
Obama
2009….. 139,649,000…………...- 5,713,000 (as of August 31, 2009)


http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
HISTORY OF TOTAL USA GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT 1980 - 2009

Year..…….GDP ($billions)….Change ($billions)
Carter
1980…….. 2,789.5………………….. + 759.4
Regan
1984…….. 3,933.2…….……………. + 1,143.7
Reagan
1988…….. 5,103.8…….………….…. + 1,170.6
Bush 41
1992…….. 6,337.7…….…………….. + 1,233.9
Clinton
1996……. 7,816.9…….…………….. + 1,479.2
Clinton
2000…….. 9,817.0…….……….….. + 2,000.1
Bush 43
2004…,, 11,685.9…….….….…….. + 1,868.9
Bush 43
2008….. 14,208.7…….…….…….. + 2,522.8
Obama

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/02/18/afx6067181.html
2009…… 14,109.2…….………….. " 99.5 (-0.7% as of August 31, 2009)
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 03:17 pm
@Setanta,
President Obama’s Administration with implementation of the TARP and the Stimulus Bill is transferring private property from those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Neither in Article I Section 8, or in Amendment V, has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such transfers of private property. Any branch of the federal government that makes such transfers of private property violates both the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution" that is required of all of its members according to Article VI. Because making such property transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States," then according to Amendment X, the exercise of such powers violates the Constitution.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.


Article II
Section 1.

The President

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article IV

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Bill of Rights (1791)

Amendment V
No person

shall

be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X
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.



parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 06:10 pm
@ican711nm,
Previously rebutted in that you don't seem to understand that the 2009 budget was passed under Bush.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:38 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Previously rebutted in that you don't seem to understand that the 2009 budget was passed under Bush.


When the truth is inconvenient it's simpler to fabricate your own.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 09:48 pm
I don't need to see you hare-brained interpretations of Congressional Acts (Mr. Obama can do none of this--the Congress has to pass these bills), and the constitution again. I know what sort of twisted fantasy world you live in.

You don't piss and moan about transfers of wealth when it's going to defense contractors, or private contractors like Halliburton, Bechtell and Blackwater who get sweetheart contracts to operate in Iraq. I don't see you whining about the transfer of wealth to operate the Federal prison system (by the far the largest single item in any budget), even though no such prison system is authorized by the constitution. I don't see you pissing and moaning about being transferred to the BLM to maintain Federal lands which are then leased to private individuals and corporations to graze livestock at laughable lease rates, which allows the to operate economies of scale which put family farmers out of business.

You only piss and moan about the government appropriating funds for things which you don't like. You don't complain about things of which you approve, and you don't look very closely at everything the government does spend its money on.

None of that matters, really, though, since your entire thesis is predicated upon a bone-head and fantastical interpretation of the constitution, which no gneuine student of the document and the history of legislation in this country would take seriously.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 10:35 pm
@ican711nm,
ican hardly ever understands what he's talking about. TARP is not the transfer of private property. They were used to save our financial system, because without it no economy can survive. The government "invested" in banks and received preferred stock and warrants. They were not give-aways or transfers. Some of the banks have already returned those funds to the government with interest.

Quote:
Definition of TARP

TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program, and it was created by the U.S. Treasury to help stable and strengthen the U.S. financial system by investing in U.S. financial institutions (banks) through its Capital Purchase Program. The Treasury allocated $250 billion and some of this has been invested in about 39 banks and the government received preferred stock and warrants from those institutions participating.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/20/2018 at 02:22:33