The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

I don't think I understand what you are saying with this part:

 

What you really ought to note when looking at the federal budget is how small a lot of the numbers we're actually talking about are in some sense. The entire deficit right now is made up of less than 5 percentage points of taxes. That's not a huge, infinite spending is good situation.

 

[lostfan]

I don't understand that part either

[Balta1701]

Allow me to try to rephrase that and elaborate on it.

 

Kap's original question was something along the lines of "When does the spending stop".

 

If you gave me infinite control over the Federal budget for a few years to set spending priorities, where would things end up? Well, they wouldn't wind up back at the Eisenhower, 90% top tier tax rates, there's no need for that.

 

You'd wind up with healthy boosts for research spending (duh), a similar boost for education at all levels, boosts in enforcement of safety regulations and corporate enforcement, and probably a 1-2% of GDP a year infrastructure spending boost to catch up on the 30 year gap in that we have.

 

Even without having me cut anything, if you gave me everything I want, even with the current deficit, we'd barely need more than the end of the Bush/Obama tax cuts to pay for it.

 

On top of that, I'd wind up finding things I'd want to cut; backing off on the defense spending boom, backing off on the Homeland Security spending boom, etc. (And of course, that doesn't even count the fact that I'd save us a couple trillion a year by magically implementing France's health care system here.)

 

We're not arguing here about the difference between 75% tax rates and 25% tax rates. If you gave me everything I wanted, I could probably do it on the Clinton-era tax rates with a few tax loophole closures, or just with a quality health care system. There's no push to spend the moon just because spending is always good.

[StrangeSox]

Oh Scalia...

 

Women Do Not Have Constitutional Protection From Discrimination

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh Scalia...

 

Women Do Not Have Constitutional Protection From Discrimination

 

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

 

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

 

In a sense I agree with him here. Today we have 9 people appointed for a lifetime to determine what the Constitution includes and what it doesn't include. I'm guessing if this had been a comment that said, textually speaking, that the Constitution doesn't protect speech in the form of political contributions by corporations, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

But really the way our system has molded itself over the last 100-150 years, our legislatures don't work as intended, so this scenario he brings up can't work. In theory we should be able to assemble and get X legislation passed, but it never does because legislators are corrupt and/or self-interested (so it never gets passed in the first place), or even if we could we often times get overruled by an ever-expanding federal government.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Evidently, there is going to be a big vote on health care reform in the House. It’s going to be on January 12, which is 8 days away. There will be no hearings on the bill. No markups out of committee. No extended period for everyone to read it. No bipartisan meeting to discuss it. There will be no CBO scoring of the bill.

 

It will be – and when you read this, please add lots of sarcasm in your head – “shoved down our throats”.

 

via

[Jenksismyhero]

via

 

Why debate a yes or no question? Repeal or don't repeal. Seems simple enough to me.

[BigSqwert]

Why debate a yes or no question? Repeal or don't repeal. Seems simple enough to me.

But why repeal? Why not? What about all of the people affected by this decision? Millions of lives and billions of dollars will be affected. Seems like a little more than a yes or no question.

Edited January 4, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

But why repeal? Why not? What about all of the people affected by this decision? Millions of lives and billions of dollars will be affected. Seems like a little more than a yes or no question.

 

Maybe that should have been debated/studied more thoroughly the first time around no?

[BigSqwert]

Maybe that should have been debated/studied more thoroughly the first time around no?

Yeah it really wasn't.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe that should have been debated/studied more thoroughly the first time around no?

 

That's the irony that's being pointed out--Republicans whined and cried about it being "shoved down our throats" (after about 13 months of debate over such great issues as death panels), but now they're ready to repeal it with no analysis and instead are saying "we already examined it!"

 

Can't have it both ways.

[StrangeSox]

In a sense I agree with him here. Today we have 9 people appointed for a lifetime to determine what the Constitution includes and what it doesn't include. I'm guessing if this had been a comment that said, textually speaking, that the Constitution doesn't protect speech in the form of political contributions by corporations, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

But really the way our system has molded itself over the last 100-150 years, our legislatures don't work as intended, so this scenario he brings up can't work. In theory we should be able to assemble and get X legislation passed, but it never does because legislators are corrupt and/or self-interested (so it never gets passed in the first place), or even if we could we often times get overruled by an ever-expanding federal government.

 

The whole point is that civil rights and protection from discrimination shouldn't be subject to majority law-making.

[Jenksismyhero]

The whole point is that civil rights and protection from discrimination shouldn't be subject to majority law-making.

 

Or minority legal reasoning.

[StrangeSox]

Or minority legal reasoning.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's the irony that's being pointed out--Republicans whined and cried about it being "shoved down our throats" (after about 13 months of debate over such great issues as death panels), but now they're ready to repeal it with no analysis and instead are saying "we already examined it!"

 

Can't have it both ways.

 

No, it's different. The last Congress forced us to buy a car we didn't know enough about. This Congress is saying, let's return the car and start the process over. You can't claim that we need debate and study over something that we didn't know enough about in the first place. That's not how legislation should work - let's pass it and figure it out later, which is exactly what happened.

 

Edit: I mean the Republicans in this Congress

Edited January 4, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

 

9 people being able to use "legal reasoning" to come up with whatever they want to come up with.

[StrangeSox]

You'll never "know enough about" it though, that's the point. It was the most-debated piece of legislation in my lifetime.

[StrangeSox]

9 people being able to use "legal reasoning" to come up with whatever they want to come up with.

 

So the courts haven't had a pretty substantial role in protecting minority civil rights in this country?

 

Anyway, how does Scalia not find gender discrimination in the 14th but manages to cite the 14th in his Bush v Gore decision?

[Jenksismyhero]

You'll never "know enough about" it though, that's the point. It was the most-debated piece of legislation in my lifetime.

 

It wasn't read. Legislators don't fully understand what they were signing. They don't need to become healthcare industry experts, they simply need to know wtf is in the bill.

[Balta1701]

It wasn't read. Legislators don't fully understand what they were signing. They don't need to become healthcare industry experts, they simply need to know wtf is in the bill.

Did you ever consider that maybe it was the people voting against the bill who didn't know what was in it, and that was why they voted that way?

[BigSqwert]

..they simply need to know wtf is in the bill.

And after 13 months they couldn't figure it out? Too bad for them.

[Jenksismyhero]

So the courts haven't had a pretty substantial role in protecting minority civil rights in this country?

 

Anyway, how does Scalia not find gender discrimination in the 14th but manages to cite the 14th in his Bush v Gore decision?

 

Who says they haven't? He said that textually speaking the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. He's right. It's not in there. Judges have added that to be specific to a certain group. He doesn't say that's good or bad on that issue, just that it's not democracy when 9 people can legislate something like that.

 

And the difference is that the 14th doesn't single out any particular group, like gender. It's equal protection for all. If you're reading it to include everyone, then fine. It's now unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of any criteria that person A has that person B doesn't have. Red heads now can't be discriminated against, fat people can't be discriminated against, Cubs fans can't be discriminated against solely on those characteristics. Is that how we read the Constitution?

 

In Bush v Gore it was based on the fact that voters were being treated differently. In county A their votes were counted, in county B their votes were not. I'm not really a fan of the argument, but basically that's what it was.

[Jenksismyhero]

Did you ever consider that maybe it was the people voting against the bill who didn't know what was in it, and that was why they voted that way?

 

Perhaps my memory is incorrect here, but I thought that changes were made late in the process such that the final draft was passed before members of Congress had the chance to read it?

[Balta1701]

Perhaps my memory is incorrect here, but I thought that changes were made late in the process such that the final draft was passed before members of Congress had the chance to read it?

If you had to read the entire bill from scratch the moment it was presented, yes, it would have been impossible. However, you'd also be the worst legislator in human history, since 99% of the bill had been available for weeks beforehand, passed by the House about 3 times, passed by the Senate twice, passed by 3 different Senate committees and I can't remember how many in the House.

 

If you didn't know what was in the bill, after a year of hearings, discussions, proposals, etc., even after the 2008 Campaign had a strong focus on Health Care reform (especially in the Democratic Primaries), then you're just lazy. Sure, a clause or two might have gotten through that your team missed or didn't understand, but come on.

[bmags]

Is that how we read the Constitution?

 

Yes. I think you brought up those examples to show how ridiculous it was, but if people were not granting equal privelege to those groups they should be forced to. Fat people can't vote? Can't wed? If that was happening it should also be stricken as a law.