• Level of trust, Blind Faith....

    October 14, 2009 at 6:15 p.m.

  • Waywardwind
    We the people, means we're one nation, one Constitution, one people, and three separate but equal branches of government. The fact that lobbyists have a strong hold on our representatives means we need campaign reform. It needs a complete overhaul.

    A turnover every two years will not solve the problem because the constituents cannot agree on a common goal, legislation, or wants.i.e. Afghanistan, most of the voters want us to withdraw all our troops. Do the voters have the classified reports? The voters were against the $700 billion bailout… Did we have the financial data to say certain if it was a good or bad idea? At some point, there has to be a level of trust.

    October 14, 2009 at 5:50 p.m.

  • Mike: "I believe that government is "we the people"; you believe it's a separate entity."

    I believe it SHOULD be 'We The People', but it's not. Yes, it has BECOME a "separate entity". You can't acknowledge the current level of corporatism and still believe we're self-governed. It's more like 'They The Scoundrels'.

    Mike: "You seem to be at war with the central government; so you will always see the Constitution being disproportionately interpreted in favor of the government over The People."

    If there's a war, it's the govt's daily war against The People.

    I guess I'm darned to an eternity in heck for trying to reign in our Constitutionally-limited govt with the Constitution.

    October 14, 2009 at 5:37 p.m.

  • Mike...I was gonna stay out of this one, but what you just posted to the spotter got to me. What you wrote was profound..."I believe that government is "we the people"; you believe it's a separate entity."

    I have to go along with what you think Spotter believes; ie; it's a separate entity. At one time, it was "we the people" but somehow, we the people let it get away from us. The large special interests have SO MUCH money that they buy the congress critters on both sides of the aisle. If you don't have at least well into six figures for his/her re-election war chest, you won't get listened to. They (congress critters) are only interested in being re-elected and that takes money. If you have money, they'll listen. If all you have is an argument, you won't even get a calender with his picture on it. The only way to get government back under the control of we the people is for we the people to quit re-electing the incumbents. The entire House of Representatives stands for election next year. Do you think it would get someone's attention if between 250 and 300 of'em got fired? A third of the Senate is due for replacement. If two-thirds of those got fired, do yo think the rest might start to pay attention to we the people. We the people are SUPPOSED TO BE boss. They are supposed to work for us; to represent us and our wishes. Congress critters have forgotten that. They are only beholden to whomever has the most money. We need for them to become beholded to those who have the votes. I'm sorry to say, I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime.

    October 14, 2009 at 5:29 p.m.

  • BSspotter
    I believe that government is "we the people"; you believe it's a separate entity.

    You seem to be at war with the central government;so you will always see the Constitution being disproportionately interpreted in favor of the government over The People...I believe the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the people on several occasions but I don't keep a scorebook.

    October 14, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

  • Mike, this is where things get circular and the conversation fizzles.

    If a clause gives them power to spend money on whatever is justified in a law, can they pass unconstitutional laws to circumvent the Constitution's enumerated powers limitations? If those items mentioned aren't Constitutional, they can't become Constitutional without an Amendment? Laws can be "illegal". (I know, I know, the judicial branch determines this, but they're just as derelict in duty as the rest of them.)

    In terms of war powers, see above.

    I agree that intent is subjective, but the intent of the document's framers & signers should weigh more than an interpretation in pursuit of power. It's funny how it seems the Constitution is disproportionately interpreted in favor of the govt over The People. Talk about a twisting of intent.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.

  • Nope - no further proof needed! that's a good source - thanks Mike!

    October 14, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.

  • I did find another source.

    (R) Home of two of the most popular senators in the country, Maine is a reliably Democratic state that has elected Republican senators for the past several terms. Senior Sen. Olympia Snowe won her first race with 60%, and has improved in her two re-election bids, winning in 2006 with 74%. Junior Sen. Susan Collins, up in 2008, won her first race with less than 50% of the vote, though she earned 58% in 2002. Still, Democrats got their top recruit -- Rep. Tom Allen -- and both candidates will be well-funded. Early polls have showed Collins running ahead, and her skepticism of the war in Iraq should help her. Allen, however, will not go quietly, and will likely make this one of the nation's top races.

    Is that satisfactory or do I need more proof?:-)

    October 14, 2009 at 4:48 p.m.

  • xring
    That was a quick resource(~2 minutes) but I'm sure I could they get some exit polling to back that up because I remember that percentile being mentioned on Hardball....Do you have a source that disputes that number?

    October 14, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.

  • The Tea Party Movement always points to Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 that says that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

    Foreign aid, funding super-national government agencies (UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO), subsidized cars, or buying stock in companies all fall in the category of legislation or appropriations made by law.

    The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a joint resolution that the president can send a United States Armed Forces into action abroad with the permission of Congress or the country is in direct attack. The president has 48 hours to inform congress of his/hers decision. I agreed that the powers of a war president need to be litigated.

    Intent is subjective.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.

  • Mike: "My source -
    In 2006, Snowe won re-election with 74 percent of the vote, compared to her Democratic opponent's 21 percent. In 2000, Snowe received 69 percent of the vote."

    A CNN "blog" is being used as a reliable source? Sounds like Advocate reporting.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.

  • Mike,

    Again, the govt serving itself with such rulings. We suffer under such misinterpretations. I prefer the following interpretations.

    "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" - James Madison

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

    It was intended that the enumerated powers coincide with the general welfare, not to give the government arbitrary power to do whatever it whimsically deemed in the general welfare.

    Plus, I don't think the general welfare clause covers unconstitutional endeavors like military adventurism (undeclared war), foreign aid, funding super-national government agencies (UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO), subsidized cars, or buying stock in companies.

    Mike: "When the Republican Party throws you out; where will you go?"

    I can't answer for Paul, but I've never been a Republican. And I guess it remains to be seen who'll be thrown out.

    October 14, 2009 at 4:06 p.m.

  • BSspotter
    You still maintain the right to petition the government; that is why lobbyists have so much control.. You are part of a small group (Ron Paulites) that think you represent mainstream America. You disagree with the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution,that has already been litigated before the Supreme Court, as have many actions you deem unconstitutional. You've had your day in court; you just don't like the ruling.

    I have been ignored by my representative (Ron Paul) for many years; lucky for me I don't need him….Last Monday night, Senator Lindsey Graham reiterated his disdain for Ron Paul and limited government conservatives at a town hall when he said that he was not going to allow the Republican Party to be “hijacked by Ron Paul.”… When the Republican Party throws you out; where will you go?

    October 14, 2009 at 3:27 p.m.

  • Mike, let me be clear that I am not personally leading a charge for secession, but I have a hard time disagreeing with the grievances of those who do lead that charge. It's not my fight... YET. I separate their motivations from their actions so the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water. I try to do that with everyone, including the 9/11 terrorists, whose motivations are dangerously ignored. (I've yet to figure out your motivations.)

    If the First Amendment was upheld, we'd have the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Considering what you know of my views on govt, if you were in my shoes, what method of "petition of redress" would you try that hasn't already failed miserably? You go to jail or have your property seized if you withhold taxes until your petition is seen. The We The People Foundation has tried & failed for years to petition for redress of various illegal uses of power & tax dollars, but they've have been ignored or handed decisions claiming they have no standing (a BS way of not hearing a case). The War Tax Resistance movement is another losing effort. We can't wait another 2, 4 or 6 years to merely vote in another gang of corporate shills. You can only get ignored by your purchased representatives for so long without feeling a sense of desperation.

    Saying that "the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States" is an amazing irony since the main motivations for secessionists are the violations of the Constitution by the govt. Checks & balances has failed. Marching lockstep with the status quo and blindly headlong with the hypocrisy is no longer an option for a growing number.

    I'm insulted when I'm dismissed as an angry Republican after being pegged as an angry Democrat for 8 years. Why can't I just be angry?

    October 14, 2009 at 2:33 p.m.

  • BSspotter
    First of all, I think Kilgore and Medina are misguided kooks; perhaps that's why only 200 people attended their rally. There is a reason Debra Medina will come in a distant third in the Republican primary.

    The Supreme Court ruled… Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

    Mr. Kilgore has every right to say that he hates the United States of America but when he takes up arms or tries to incite violence against the Government, he should be arrested. We don't need another Timothy McVeigh.

    We don't have a perfect government but I've taken it in its totality; not an isolated incident here and there…. I believe in the words of Bill Clinton when he said “For too long we've been told about "us" and "them." Each and every election we see a new slate of arguments and ads telling us that "they" are the problem, not "us." But there can be no "them" in America. There's only us.

    October 14, 2009 at 1:49 p.m.

  • Let's break this down into its parts.

    Kilgore said: "I hate the United States government. They’re an evil, corrupt government."

    I can't vouch for everything this guy has ever said, but if he thinks the US govt is evil & corrupt (he's right), is he wrong for hating it? Is he wrong for hating the logo (flag) of that "evil" entity? Why is secession treasonous? As I mentioned, our contract with the govt has been violated, so why shouldn't we be able to walk away from the agreement. How many other Bill of Rights violations will you tolerate before you sour on this perversion of govt?

    I've found myself having a real hard time reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag over the last few years. I love what the flag stands for, but I loathe what govt has done behind the cloak of the flag.

    Medina's follow-up comments are pretty matter-of-fact. The US govt wouldn't let Texas secede without a slaughter. Do you disagree? Do you think those words would've been spoken had those Amendments not been completely ignored?

    October 14, 2009 at 12:17 p.m.

  • BSspotter
    There are people on the right to condemn President Obama for his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his words but the words of Larry Kilgore did not go on an endless loop on Fox News. I find Kilgore's words a lot more offensive.

    Debra applauded as Larry Kilgore said " “I hate that flag up there,” Kilgore said pointing to the American flag flying over the Capitol. “I hate the United States government. … They’re an evil, corrupt government. They need to go. Sovereignty is not good enough. Secession is what we need!”
    “We hate the United States!,” he said later in the speech.
    Medina chipped in: “We are aware that stepping off into secession may in fact be a bloody war. We are aware that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”… You call that they're raising awareness of the violation of the ninth and 10th amendment. I call that treasonous.

    I am aware of the corruption and the lobbyist partnerships with our representatives. I recognize that every dollar Wall Street pays to lobbyist they get back $250,000 in return… McCain-Feingold has been criticized by conservatives as being unconstitutional.

    I never said I was for big government but I do not find government, the root of all evil ,nor do I have a” either or” attitude.

    October 14, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.

  • Mike: "You support Debra Medina (secessionist) that is objective politics. You separate yourself from the Democrats and Republicans but you are not above the fray when he comes to partisanship."

    I'm not supporting Medina because of her party but in spite of it. I'm not real keen on some of her social views, but I can get behind her fiscal & governmental principles. (Her views on the role of govt limits her use of social policy.) Her secessionist views are her way of raising awareness of the violations of the 9th & 10th Amendments. The point in supporting her is to be true to my limited-govt principles versus the empty "conservative" words of Perry & Hutchison.
    Mike: "You want government to be reduced to the size of a Radio Shack outlet, and you do not want to pay income taxes."

    This is a misrepresentation of my views. I accept that govt has its place. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. I want govt to be lean, efficient, accountable, transparent, and responsible. All of those qualities serve the people better. I'd also prefer the Federal govt be restricted to its Constitutional duties, and if they see fit to go beyond those duties, they should amend the Constitution. That document was supposed to be our contract with our govt, but it's been ignored at our peril.
    Mike: "Those that participate in representative government (as is) are just wrong in your eyes."

    Right on. The problem with "as-is" govt is that it's not representative. Sure, we vote for these people to represent us, but is that what they do once they get into office and are taken in by corporate/military lobbyists? As-is won't cut it. If you're unaware or choose to ignore that we have neither representative govt nor a free market due to unchecked corporatism, then your participation in as-is govt only perpetuates the lie.

    I'll close with what I told Suzy:
    "Your response indicates that you think Big Govt & Big Biz are mutually exclusive concepts. Frankly, neither entity gets big without the other, which is why we find ourselves in a Fascist State."

    October 14, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.

  • BSspotter
    I am a follower of Paul Samuelson economics of blending Keynesian tactics with the proper role of government intervention during a financial crisis. We are putting those tactics in place and they will be judged accordingly… No one is encouraging the consumer to spend but since they are not; the falling dollar encourages foreigners to buy our cheaper goods. This increases consumer confidence. The interest rates will remain low until unemployment comes down to around 8%.

    I am almost 64 years old, so I have learned to live with high deficits. Doesn't mean I like it, just means that I can’t put that tag on any administration, party, or ideology.

    President Barack Obama owns the Afghan/ Pakistan war. Pakistan is our ally, so we are not instigating them but we should pursue the effort of discouraging Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

    I will repeat, everyone has an agenda…. You support Debra Medina (secessionist) that is objective politics. You separate yourself from the Democrats and Republicans but you are not above the fray when he comes to partisanship. You want government to be reduced to the size of a Radio Shack outlet, and you do not want to pay income taxes. Those that participate in representative government (as is) are just wrong in your eyes.

    October 14, 2009 at 10:53 a.m.

  • Mike says: "Are you insinuating that I am too dumb or just a child..."

    Not at all. I was just concerned about your wholesale adoption of shortsighted Keynesian economics. The fact that we have a credit-based economy and a negative savings rate is why we're in this mess. Consumers should be able to be frugal with their earnings without being guilted into spending it (exporting dollars to China), and encouraging more consumer debt is abominable. We need savings, but interest rates are set artificially too low by the Fed.
    Mike says: "My point: the temporary fall of the dollar does have a silver lining."

    My point: There's nothing temporary about the fall of the dollar. It's been trending downward since 1913 and is worth a 1913 nickel. Finding a "silver lining" in the falling dollar is like telling a widow her husband is in a better place. It's an empty consolation.
    Mike says: "My issues with President George W. Bush were about the war of choice with no end in sight."

    Did you have a problem with the huge (by pre-2009 standards) deficits? Do you still have a problem with our arbitrary wars with no end in sight, or are we still "cleaning up Bush's mess"? At what point does our current President own these wars? Do you support instigations of Pakistan and Iran?
    Mike says: "You are lecturing me about my posts being overly-political. You need giant mirror firmly attached to your monitor."

    I was referring to party politics (your own debased currency), not the politics of representative government. If you can find an instance of me playing non-objective party politics, I'll put a mirror on my monitor.

    October 14, 2009 at 10:17 a.m.

  • Senator Snowe and the voters of Maine:

    Senator Snowe stated there was no way a bill with a public option would pass. Abandoning the public option, Snowe believes, would restore momentum to getting some form of health care reform passed.

    A new poll conducted by Lake Research Associates for the Maine People’s Alliance shows that a majority of Mainers disagree. Of 400 likely voters polled 58% supported giving everyone the choice of a public choice option while 35% opposed.

    They will vote for her in 2012.

    October 14, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.

  • BSspotter said “Who told you to say that?”

    Are you insinuating that I am too dumb or just a child that I cannot see that retail sales are down again by 1.5% and consumer savings is at 7.0 %( up from 1% before the crash) equates to consumers not spending….My point: the temporary fall of the dollar does have a silver lining.

    My issues with President George W. Bush were about the war of choice with no end in sight….

    I worked with the issues that are before congress (Democrats, Republicans, one Socialist, and one Independent Democrat).

    You are lecturing me about my posts being overly-political…You need giant mirror firmly attached to your monitor.

    October 14, 2009 at 9:26 a.m.

  • Coolgranny
    The voters of Maine are very independent.

    My source

    In 2006, Snowe won re-election with 74 percent of the vote, compared to her Democratic opponent's 21 percent. In 2000, Snowe received 69 percent of the vote.

    GOP leadership threaten to take her off leadership committees like Health Care Reform..When she voted for the stimulus package,Michael Steele said he was looking for a candidate to run against her in the 2012 election.

    October 14, 2009 at 9:05 a.m.

  • Granny,
    Your comment helps make my point. In this age of unending information and opinion that passes for news,there is plenty of "truth" for everyone. Just do a little looking around. You can find the truth that suits your ideology!LOL

    October 14, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.

  • I think voters will appreciate it. This does not mean that she will vote for the final product, but it deserved to get voted through now, so further work can be done on it.
    I don't think people realize how fed up with the present healthcare system the average american is, and blocking everything, just because the GOP leadership says so, is not the right thing to do. It's a long way from a done deal.

    October 14, 2009 at 8:13 a.m.

  • I don't know what magazines you read and where you find the information to back up what you write, but my magazines present a completely different perspective, and so does our broker. Snowe needs to worry about the people who elected her, not the Republican Senate leadership. Her public service life has now been shortened. Voters will make sure of it.

    October 14, 2009 at 7:31 a.m.

  • Victore
    you are right. Obama and the rest of the lefts sunk all of our money into falsified wars. Obama has been in office for a few months. The Right was in charge for 8 years. Our economy wasnt in this bad of shape when Clinton was in office.

    October 13, 2009 at 10:19 p.m.

  • Mike says: "A lower value of dollar right now, is good news, since the America consumer is not spending,it evens out the trade deficit."

    Who told you to say that? Why can't you make the connection between the growing lower class and the growing disparity between wages and the dollar's purchasing power? This is one of the biggest hypocrisies of the "Left" -- "We love the poor, BUT we're going to debase the dollar and wick away the purchasing power of the few dollars they have."

    Franky, I was much harder on Bush than I have been on Obama because I've since realized there's no point in ripping on the mouthpiece when the entire system is flawed. My gripes started long before January... of 2002.

    By chance, did you have "gloom & doom" feelings when Bush was in office? I know I did, and justifiably so. Can you relate to that feeling of despair coming from the "Right"?

    Are you able to make a point without using the words Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal? As long as you keep using those words, you'll garner the same visceral reactions from your readers. Your posts are always in an overly-political and -reactionary context.

    You said "It's easy to complain without solutions." I'm hearing a bunch of complaining about the complainers. What are your solutions for the economy & health care? Who cares what the Republicans are doing or saying?

    October 13, 2009 at 9:32 p.m.

  • Dollar loses reserve status to yen & euro
    by Paul Tharp - New York Post
    October 13, 2009

    Ben Bernanke's dollar crisis went into a wider mode yesterday as the greenback was shockingly upstaged by the euro and yen, both of which can lay claim to the world title as the currency favored by central banks as their reserve currency.

    Over the last three months, banks put 63 percent of their new cash into euros and yen -- not the greenbacks -- a nearly complete reversal of the dollar's onetime dominance for reserves, according to Barclays Capital. The dollar's share of new cash in the central banks was down to 37 percent -- compared with two-thirds a decade ago.

    Currently, dollars account for about 62 percent of the currency reserve at central banks -- the lowest on record, said the International Monetary Fund.

    Bernanke could go down in economic history as the man who killed the greenback on the operating table.

    After printing up trillions of new dollars and new bonds to stimulate the US economy, the Federal Reserve chief is now boxed into a corner battling two separate monsters that could devour the economy -- ravenous inflation on one hand, and a perilous recession on the other.

    "He's in a crisis worse than the meltdown ever was," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. "I fear that he could be the Fed chairman who brought down the whole thing."

    Investors and central banks are snubbing dollars because the greenback is kept too weak by zero interest rates and a flood of greenbacks in the global economy.

    They grumble that they've loaned the US record amounts to cover its mounting debt, but are getting paid back by a currency that's worth 10 percent less in the past three months alone. In a decade, it's down nearly one-third.

    Yesterday, the dollar had a mixed performance, falling slightly against the British pound to $1.5801 from $1.5846 Friday, but rising against the euro to $1.4779 from $1.4709 and against the yen to 89.85 yen from 89.78.

    Economists believe the market rebellion against the dollar will spread until Bernanke starts raising interest rates from around zero to the high single digits, and pulls back the flood of currency spewed from US printing presses.

    "That's a cure, but it's also going to stifle any US economic growth," said Schiff. "The economy is addicted to the cheap interest and liquidity."

    Economists warn that a jump in rates will clobber stocks and cripple the already stalled housing market.

    "Bernanke's other choice is to keep rates at zero, print even more money and sell more debt, but we'll see triple-digit inflation that could collapse the economy as we know it.

    "The stimulus is what's toxic -- we're poisoning ourselves and the global economy with it."

    October 13, 2009 at 9:05 p.m.

  • "September 15, 2008 proved that the free market cannot be trusted to regulate themselves."

    Hahahaha!! You thought we had a free market? Seriously?

    October 13, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.

  • I will tell you, let’s put a new glass-doom over Washington DC, and let’s re-name congress to the house of social programs. We go to a single party system; let’s put our tools down walk away from our jobs, because conditions are so bad. Have a complete government take over of all industry. We call Mexico here it is, the jobs are all yours for the taken. The government will provide all the power for cars and utilities. Let’s just shut down the country. We all set back and wait on the government to take care of our problems. We will live in poverty, because that is what the Democratic Party wants. No more investments you might make to much money. Let’s just tax, tax, tax, don’t worry just be happy some one will pay for all of our social programs.. If we need money we will just print more or borrow more. Hell let’s us get a issued Obama flag as part of the package, why not.. I don’t think I was anti-government, do you?

    October 13, 2009 at 4:13 p.m.

  • Yeep, your friends on the left are doing a fine job.

    October 13, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.