Is it Time for a 3rd Party?
Whenever people ask me what my party affiliation is, I respond “Pragmatic Independent.”
The question usually comes up in response to something I wrote. I’ve been contacted by Republicans, who want me to join or advise their committees. I usually tell them that I find much of their ideology intellectually indefensible, and their marriage to the religious right offensive.
When I get the same question from Democrats, my response is they seem to not understand how the economy works, are too spineless to get anything done, and are way too politically correct for my tastes.
I agree with Krugman that Obama has been wimpy, when he should have been relentlessly beating the opposition over the head. Reagan never let the public forget who had driven the country into a ditch, nor did he let Congress forget he was in charge. Imagine his response if the other party rejected his plan for a bi-partisan panel.
There are notable exceptions — the two NY Senators when I was growing up were statesmen — Jacob Javitz and Daniel Moynihan (a Dem and a Repub). They seem to be part of ancient history. Today, I have to search far and wide to find congress critters who are uncorrupted, understand how business works, and have the balls to call it like it is. Alan Grayson of Florida is the closest thing I have seen to what a modern Congressman should be like.
We have a Congress that is a Parliament of Whores of who sold themselves to the highest corporate bidder. Why do I want to have any affiliation with either group? And I am not sure if a 3rd party can break the death grip on America the parties have.
~~~
OK, enough political nonsense on this SOTU day. Back to the markets . . .
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
January 27th, 2010 at 7:13 am
two parties is perfect-
one to invade other countries- the other to give us great programs like the “great society”-
sure am glad there are no more poor people and we have conquered large tracts of land in the desert
January 27th, 2010 at 7:22 am
an idea from Obama-
“President Barack Obama intends to award $8 billion in stimulus funds to develop high-speed rail corridors and sell the program as a jobs creator.”- yahoo finance
definitely an attractive idea- especially out here on the East Coast where there are major corridors and high density-
forward thinking for a change-
sure beats buying General Motors
January 27th, 2010 at 7:33 am
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a third party is on its way.
This is no doubt why Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm Russo, Marsh, and Associates created the Tea Party.
I wonder if a functioning third (or fourth) party could actually come about without being controlled by the same apparatchiks from the current political machines running things today.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:36 am
What??
“Reagan never let the public forget who had driven the country into a ditch, nor did he let Congress forget he was in charge.”
Sure he was. That’s why Congress refused to cut spending to match the tax cuts and caused huge deficit spending.
WADR, BR, you have got to be kidding that Reagan was in charge.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:37 am
There isn’t a niche for a third party. One already has used our fear of being invaded or killed by a criminal and the other party feeds on our fear of dying of starvation on the street without health care.
What other primal fear is left?
January 27th, 2010 at 7:51 am
“Alan Grayson of Florida is the closest thing I have seen to what a modern Congressman should be like.”
LOL.
His scamming with Derivium certainly qualifies him!
January 27th, 2010 at 7:52 am
How long have you been a “Pragmatic Independent.”? I think the turning point for me was probably seeing Mike Gravel and Ron Paul in the 08 race call out all the BS of both parties. I am young though, it is beyond me how any old person can still believe in this two party system or want to have any affiliation with either party.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Absolutely we need a third party.
The partisan politics is disgusting. 7 Republican Senators vote in Committee to create a bipartisan panel on deficit reduction and then those same 7 Republican Senators vote against the panel in full session. I hope everyone of them is voted out of office for putting their party’s interests above those of the nation.
Apparently they misinterpreted the message of Massachusetts.
(btw BR, this new party had better be very inclusive to get both you and me under the same tent!!!)
January 27th, 2010 at 8:03 am
George W Bush did not drive the economy into a ditch by himself. He was just the president at the wheel when it hit the ditch. The road to the ditch was paved by Reagan and his deficit spending, a policy that was followed wholeheartedly by every subsequent administration, George W Bush’s included. Moreover the velocity of the trip into the ditch was sped up by Greenspan screwing around with interest rate policy every time Wall Street got themselves in trouble. Add to it a Congress this is bought by Wall Street and regulators led by former Wall Street employees we hit the ditch without any airbags or seatbelts.
You get what you vote for in this country. If you don’t want to vote for a third party candidate then vote against the incumbent no matter the party in every single election until things change. You see it in Obama’s new found religion. These clowns only wake up when their power is threatened. Of course Obama’s “plans for the economy” are going to make things worse and make the final crash even worse. Like an alcoholic switching from booze, to beer to wine, he might delay the inevitable trip to rehab but that’s where he’s ending up.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:06 am
OT – I just heard Chuck Schumer discuss an excellent job stimulus idea that is making waves in Congress and might even be addressed by Obama tonight.
Basically the concept is to give businesses a one year tax break on payroll taxes for every new employee added to their payrolls. Thus businesses that are hiring (there has got to a few out there) will get roughly an 8% discount on the first year cost of a new employee.
Now lets hope that the staffers in Congress don’t muck it up with excessive limitations and restrictions. It ought to be a 1 or 2 page bill.
This concept should garner unanimous bipartisan support. If it doesn’t, we might as well fold the tent.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:07 am
There is really no chance for a third party. The religious wackos took over the GOP by infiltrating it deliberately, and the problem is that you can only do that by an organized, purposeful action. Lobbyists with money have that, people who suffer from religion have that… but common sense has no headquarters, no fundraisers, no war chest, no phone banks, no organizational chart. It will never win.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Barry, good call on Moynihan. Daniel P. Moynihan was one of the few to have the intellectual chops to back up his political actions.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:16 am
speaking of 3rd parties…here’s xomething from the las vegas sun…http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/24/new-conservatives/
January 27th, 2010 at 8:21 am
In this day and age the problem with a third party is it’ll eventually be taken over by grifters–people who will hype populist BS for a buck. Sort of like FNC.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Totally agree. What seems to be the norm is for all those in the middle to ping pong between the two polarizing parties. Things got crummy under Bush so all those in the middle went to Obama with what I am sure were a great many voting that way just to vote against the status quo. Now the opposite happens. Rinse and repeat. Check out this site to see how elections have gone since the start. http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html As recently as 1912 we had 3 candidates get over 20% of the popular vote. There were also years when parties had multiple candidates run.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Given the recent opinion by the Supreme Court taking the limits (gloves) off corporate political spending, there become options for those willing to play be the same rules as the RDs.
Become a party of personal freedom, limited small government. Get rid of Homeland Security, Dept of Education, NCLB, and a few others. Back term limits for congress, session limits for congress, maybe even get congress out of DC. Back more tax cuts!
Yep! Just might work!
January 27th, 2010 at 8:37 am
It’s not nonsense.
It’s the CORRECT answer
January 27th, 2010 at 8:40 am
My analysis projected a libertarian presiden in early 2020, yet, obama and the congress and senate have proved to be quite laughable during the whole crisis. Once states start fessing up to being bankrupt, one would guess it could be quicker.
Face it, most folks are fine with:
a. gay marriage
b. abortion
c. having a strong military, yet, major constraint on invading
d. cutting off giving money away to every country that breaths
e. drilling wherever we think oil is
f. an expanding prosperous middle class
Perot had a shot based on idea’s, yet, he picked a ridiculous running mate, and believed in conspiracy theories, yet, he garned what 23% of the vote.
HATE MOTIVATES, most folks hate the government due to sheer long term stupidity.
Whatever what one persons believes are we all are connected by money, government is proving to be wholly stupid and incompetent with money.
If the libertarians were smart, they’d find somone with brains and charisma, come up with a strategy to win, and go too work. IMHO, they could do it………simply……….HATE MOTIVATES
January 27th, 2010 at 8:42 am
I never quite understand how a third party will fix things. I think eventually both parties are gone.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:45 am
woe! 8 billion for high speed rail. that ought to build at least a mile or so of track and thousands of mexican laborers will be tickeled shitless. as far as a third party, i believe the two we already have are doing a great job at screwing this country, no need to complicate things.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:52 am
It’s true, the DEMS and REPUBS play to these polarizing social issues as a means to divide and conquer while they and the interests behind them that really run the country ( military industrial complex, unions, big oil, Wall Street) rob the public treasury. Any attempt to change that via a third party is co-opted when the DEMS and REPUBS mimic the third party’s ideals, though they don’t really believe them, and later water them down. It doesn’t help that via the entrenched two party system, and lack of public financing of campaigns, that the mainstream media fully supports the above system.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:53 am
“Ballot Access” needs to be front, and center, of any conversation regarding ‘Third Parties’..
like this: “posted Thursday, 30 September 2004
Supreme Court to hear Libertarian Party ballot access case
The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will review an election law case brought by the Oklahoma Libertarian Party.
The party is requesting the right to hold an open primary in the state, which permits only closed or semi-closed primaries.
“We’re taking the position that it’s our business, not the government’s, as to who votes in the candidate selection process,” said Richard Winger, a Libertarian Party member and publisher of Ballot Access News, which examines ballot access for third parties.
“In Oklahoma, the two older parties have written incredibly hostile ballot access laws in an attempt to keep their competitors small and weak. Having an open primary is a way to get more people involved in our party.”
In Oklahoma, a third party needs to collect more than 51,000 signatures to get on the ballot, a feat no third party was able to achieve this year.
The case now slated to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, Clingman v. Beaver, was originally filed in 2000. The party lost in U.S. District Court but won in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are expected in December.
If the party prevails in the U.S. Supreme Court, qualified parties who hold their own primary elections will be able to decide whether all registered voters may participate — or whether the primary should be restricted only to voters registered for that party.
“This is very exciting, because it’s the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has taken an election-law case in which we are the primary plaintiff,” Winger said. “We’ve tried at least 20 times before.”…”
http://www.shadesofgray.blog-city.com/supreme_court_on_ok_ballot_case.htm
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Ballot+Access+Third+Parties+Closed+Primaries
January 27th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Looking at Massachusetts recent election, a third party would have had a fighting chance.
Not only is it worrying but absolutely ridiculous to only have a male model with a truck as an alternative when you want to express your frustration with the current administration.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:57 am
“That’s why Congress refused to cut spending to match the tax cuts and caused huge deficit spending. ”
That was the beauty of the Laffer Curve. You never had to do anything. The money was for nothing, and the chicks were free.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Barry, it’s great to hear you talking about a third party. I’ve never felt so compelled to vote for one as I have lately. In the past I always felt that if I voted for a third party I’d be wasting my vote. Now I realize that I am wasting any vote that I cast for either a Republican or Democrat.
Philosophically I most closely identify with the Libertarian Party. I suspect you might lean in that direction as well. If you haven’t read their platform or position on the issues I urge you to spend some time on their website – http://www.lp.org
January 27th, 2010 at 9:30 am
go to national debt.org and see if you think we don’t need a third party. don’t just look at the main deficit but look at the cherished government program deficits of social security, medicare, presription drug…
we are approaching 100 trillion of debt & unfunded liabilities. ground control to major tong.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Ronald Reagan was a democrat.
We are responsible because we have not been active and demanded better representation.
When is the last time you have attended a city council meeting, met with your child’s teachers, attended a party meeting, written an op-ed, called your representative, visited your representatives office….
Look in the mirror.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:36 am
you know, We might do well to get over it–in general.
as ex., Reagan, like the Past, itself, is Carcass that no longer Hunts..
maybe, we’ll remember that “Today is a Day that we can do something with, and Tomorrow is part of the Future we can, actually, change..”
January 27th, 2010 at 9:37 am
“We are responsible because we have not been active and demanded better representation.
When is the last time you have attended a city council meeting, met with your child’s teachers, attended a party meeting, written an op-ed, called your representative, visited your representatives office….
Look in the mirror.”
thfiv,
good point~
January 27th, 2010 at 9:41 am
BR, you couldn’t have put my feelings about politics into print any better!! Our government has just about become hopeless/useless. IMHO, Obama got elected for these same reasons: We want our useless government changed to a government that will do something for the people. But he alone can’t do anything much, because both parties of congressmen have been bought off and only work for the greedy to cement their future when voters kick them out of office.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:47 am
`
America needs a ’2nd Party’ …. not a 3rd Party.
Democrats & Republicans are merely two branches of the same party — the corrupt ‘Ruling Party’.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Time to resurrect the Bull Moose Party of Teddy R.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Touche mcmalley
January 27th, 2010 at 9:53 am
@MEH:
Has that issue been rendered moot?
————————-
Bank of America announces BallotBucksTM!
Get paid $100 just for voting!
Every Ward 23 voter who writes in the promotional code “Ima Shill” as a write-in candidate* this November will receive $100 as a special BallotBucksTM reward in their checking account.
Just another way that Bank of America supports communities and the democratic process.
*Digital photo of actual ballot must be emailed to Bank of America to qualify
January 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
It is frustrating. I have to agree with BR’s assessment including the remarks about Javitz and Moynihan.
I haven’t voted for any Republican in any election since the late nineties because as wally pointed out the “religious wackos took over the GOP.” And since Bush was elected, the GOP operates more like a party of apparatchiks. There’s no substance there, only “no.”
I have voted Libertarian in the past, too. But the Libertarian party was co-opted or is populated by right-wingers who seem to have only read those parts of its foundation that suit them. Then there’s the problem that I find those foundations based on inaccurate premises.
Then there’s the Dems and Obama. Good grief. Pussies and a guy still clinging to some kind of bipartisan hope. It ain’t happening.
Finally the recent Supreme Court decision will probably insure that any third party or grass roots organization gets usurped.
And people wonder why I investigate emigration on other countries’ web sites.
Sigh.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:10 am
I’m officially on voter’s strike in the national elections. Maybe I’ll get out for the local elections and just write my dog’s name in for the national elections. Getting involved on a national level doesn’t make a difference anymore, in the national elections, anyway. The only fighting chance one has is to keep it local. Even making a difference there is pretty difficult these days in many localities.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:20 am
while i think a 3rd party would be an improvement, it would be a new party that doesn’t exist today as all of the big 2 have been captured, and really are the same, with small differences in actions (not so much in the rhetoric, but thats nothing but spin!). the R are in favor of the top 1%, and always have been, The D are in favor of the bottom 15%. The middle is on their own. none of the major or minor parties are in favor of them. some seem to think that if they just click their heels right their ideals will work that utopia will happen. but they ignore human nature thinking that if we just did x it will fix all of it. nope. never worked before not going to work now either.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Fox News just named most trusted name in news by Harris Poll….
Well, it’s been a nice run America. See ya later.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:35 am
great minds think alike.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Mannwich, our local elections are worse than the state and national ones. The only hacks who run are so bad it is a matter of voting for the least worst option, and they never disappoint. The winners then hire their brothers, cousins, or friends for newly created positions and double down on incompetence. The city votes in alternate parties each election in the hopes someone decent will by accident come into office.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Thanks BR,
First clear discussion of national politics that I’ve heard from a public figure, ever. I congratulate you wholeheartedly on your courage.
I remain a Democrat for reasons of policy though I agree with your criticism. If you want a decent minimum wage for example, don’t look to Republicans, Social Security, Medicaid, the right to organize for decent work conditions, etc.
But on your description of Ronald Reagan I must draw a line. It leaves out one thing always omitted when he is discussed and what must be the most important because it served to further decades of continued racial animosity. He began his presidential campaign in a small town in Mississippi called Philadelphia, Mississippi where civil rights workers had been brutally murdered. His speech that day was on States Rights. He did not mention those killed. As a jew you should make a particular note of that and be one of the few to break the silence on the legacy of Reagan. Thanks for otherwise calling it like it is.
SS
January 27th, 2010 at 10:53 am
@Machiavelli999: My brother forwarded me that “poll” as well. They were still only trusted by 49%. Not exactly a ringing endorsement but I hear you. I honestly don’t think that many people watch TV “news” anymore. I don’t. I did watch the “60 Minutes” piece (on DVR) with Steve Schmidt last night and my jaw dropped on how clueless Sarah Palin really was (and still is) during the campaign last year. If she’s the one for ’12, then I’ll be heading for the exits as well.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Transor,
I hear you, it’s, too much, like that..
and, also, w/this “… The only fighting chance one has is to keep it local.”–from Jeff, above, is, to me, the solution..
~~
SS,
way to go w/ the “States Rights=Slavery/Racism”-meme..nice to see that some Brainwashing is long-lasting..
Bernays would be Proud..
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Bernays
January 27th, 2010 at 10:59 am
“too spineless to get anything done” simply means raise taxes to accomplish your agenda. i’m fine with that as long as everybody pays. bush and, now, obama should raise govt income to the level of spending. then voters will decide if it’s worth it or not.
br – alan grayson is a one term moron. if that’s your idea of “the closest thing to what a modern congressman should be like” then you are not a “pragmatic” independent. i would classify you as a “progressive” independent. someone who believes the bigger the govt the better – to hell with liberty.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:05 am
There already is a third party. It is the newly forming Tea Party which has adopted much of the long in existence Libertarian party.
Primarily democrats but republicans, or at least pretend republicans have brought this on. The fact that we have to go and borrow from China-and if you believe a country is the sum of its people, we are borrowing from Chinese peasants; to fund our profligate elevated lifestyle while we are virtually taxed to death really says something about the two parties we have.
Yes, taxed to death. If you add up all the taxes we pay and pro-rate them into days of the year we work from January through October to pay all our various taxes. This formula would take into account Federal, State and local income taxes, payroll taxes of social security and medicare and prescription drug but alos property tax, sales tax, fuel taxes, estate taxes divided into individual years, gift tax, licenses, registrations and fees and on and on. This would apply to an evil rich person who makes $250,000 a year and saved his-her money for their children so thye have an estate.
In feudal times peasants would have to give one fifth of their earnings to the local tax collector for the lords and kings. Now we give four fifths of our earnings. We are the living embodiment of a socialist system. And all we here from the left is the rich should pay more-their fair share. We even here this from the rich-Bill Gates and Warren Buffet; at least the super rich like the Kennedys of yesterday who could afford to promote redistributionist dogma.
What is most disturbing is even our conservative free market congressman on the republican side will rarely talk against the cherished dusty bankrupt insitutions like Medicare and Social Security. We have becoem so indoctrinated with socialist policy even our anti government leaders support big failed government programs.
This is why the Tea Party-Libertarian Party has arisen. And by the way if we don’t get a third party of this variety that takes hold and dominates, we are done. Every great nation since the Roman Empire has self destructed. Our founding father Thomas Jefferson spoke of our biggest danger coming from inside our borders not an external enememy and he advocated a revolution every once in a while. WE now have the start of one, hopefully it is not too late.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Mannwich,
Barry like to call himself a “pragmatic independent”. I like to call myself a “realistic liberal”.
And as someone who lives in a world of realism, I have to make a sad analysis of the United States. Fox News and talk radio are the most powerful political institutions in the United States today. They run this country. And they lie CONSTANTLY.
In 3 years we will either be run at best by corporatists (Mitt Romney) and at worst by lunatics (Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck).
January 27th, 2010 at 11:10 am
A Libertarian is:
Someone whose Grandfather made it through the Depression working for the WPA; went off to World War II came back and used the GI Bill to get a college education; went to work at a defense plant; had two children who went to public schools with subsidized lunches; one went on to a State college and one was injured in Vietnam and received Veterans assistance until he died; the other started a successful business using a Small Business loan that sold computer services to various State agencies; his son went to State a college and, using student loans, on to medical school studying geriatrics; after developing a successful practice catering to Medicare patients and paying hefty taxes he now complains about big Government and spending.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:13 am
The “Tea Party” movement is going to be a FAIL as a third party (making no judgments on their value as a protest movement).
Protest movements are fine until people look to their left and right and decide their fellow members are complete wackos. Any successful third party is going to have to be centrist and not dominated by extremes.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:14 am
What swoop just wrote there up above is the #1 reason why we are all doomed. It’s all BS and everyone believes it.
I can point out mountain of facts to prove him wrong (top marginal tax rates were between 70-90% in the 50s, 60s, 70s; tax receipts as % of GDP are the lowest in decades) but I know it doesn’t matter.
Swoop and American like him (which again since I am a realist, I must admit make up the majority now) make up their own realities. Where facts and numbers are evil.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’m afraid you might be right, Machiavelli999. But it will be somewhat entertaining to watch a lot of those clueless “tea party” types reap the “rewards” of what many of them are sowing. They still won’t know who or what to blame after “their own” completely robs them of everything they have left…..
January 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am
It is like the cry of “greed is good”.
Greed: : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
Selfish: : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
Excessive: : exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal
How long can a soceity exist that has a foundation of excessive greed and selfishness?
January 27th, 2010 at 11:18 am
and, let’s make sure We keep ‘thinking’ along linear lines.. (riight~)
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
World’s Smallest Political Quiz
The ORIGINAL Internet Political Quiz
Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!
Personal Issues
(Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.) A M D
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
There should be no National ID card.
Economic Issues
(Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.) A M D
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business.
End government barriers to international free trade.
Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Replace government welfare with private charity.
Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:26 am
A credible third party might actually do some good and broaden the discourse to include rational thinking. But with the current system you WILL be wasting your vote with a third party vote. The two party system is intentionally kept that way and there is no incentive for the ruling parties to change that. In my view, the best bet is for Instant Runoff Voting to be implemented on a local level, and that’s been done in several cities, then moving to a national level once it’s understood and accepted.
IRV allows you to vote your conscience without helping the candidate you LEAST want to win and in the long run I think it will create a marketplace of candidates and ideas.
Jim W.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Goldmann’s effective tax rate last year was 1%.
If only they could get a tax cut, they would have done well.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Mr. Ritholtz,
You sure have some real lunes who blog on this site.
Why don’t you take your experience, education and pragmatism to draft legislation to correct part of what is wrong in government regulation. You can ask your contacts and bloggers to input and get support?
Then we can all do something constructive for America instead of just making fools of ourselves on this blog.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Bsneath,
I hope they will attach some strings about existing employees before giving tax break for new employee. Otherwise, companies can start lay off existing employees and recruit new employees for 8% less.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
@Patrick Neid:
Grayson was one of the victims of Derivium.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rep-alan-grayson-ponzi-scheme-victim-2009-7
Pray tell why that should disqualify him from high office.
BR was right: Political partisans’ brains are effectively deranged.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
We need 6 or 7 political parties. 3 will always fail and make sure the minority opinion for big issues wins out in elections. a lot of diverse viewpoints and run off elections is what we need.
The Tea Party is a joke. They are tools of republican organizations, and are the same paranoids that creep every every time the Dems takes power. They are some of the most ignorant and racist people in america.
The Dems are spineless, and too many have compromised their souls to stay in power. No republican makes it to the national stage with any humanity at all intact.
We are probably screwed at this point. The climate change issues will not be addressed until it is too late now. Our economy will not be reset to a sane, regulated capitalism for another ten years at a minimum.
Libertarians will scrw us even more than the Republicans. They are utterly clueless as to why we need to regulate a planet with 7 billion humans on it.
The Greens are utterly powerless and chaotic and the nature of our politcal system means that anyone with the clarity of thought to see whats needs to be also sees they want no part of our political system.
We need a Roosevelt. Or a Huey Long.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Mark, you’re an Idiot -
States Rights doesn’t equal racism but using it to enforce racist policies does. I am not against states rights but against racism and Reagan was clearly playing to the racist reaction of the South to school desegregation.
Too bad Barry doesn’t have a math problem to solve or something similar, as on Zero Hedge, to weed out those incapable of thinking beyond their hate.
SS
January 27th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Third party? Pipe dream.
TPTB and their MSM minions would put it in a vice as soon as it gained mainstream momentum.
The teabaggers get coverage because car chases and hostage situations get coverage. They’re unusual, dramatic and a glimpse of erratic behavior of humans who create their own chaotic reality to justify delusion. Can you picture ‘baggers implementing policy? They don’t know what socialism is but they know that it’s being forced upon them, whether they’re at Costco or Home Depot or Applebees, it’s everywhere.
It’s not the party, it’s not even the ideology. It’s the party or ideology as supported or espoused by human beings. Can anyone find an exapmle of a concept initiated by humankind that didn’t eventually metastasize into something dangerous or divisive or stagnant due to its in/efficiency, due to its neglect/expansion?
January 27th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
SS,
it was the easiest way to clear that up..
these:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html
are two things, out of, at least, 10, that need to be remembered.
and, quite simply, the whole issue of ‘Federalism’ should be re-thought..
though, at the minimum, remember to Thank these dudes, that took the Time to Think, and Gave us this compendium..
Anti-Federalist Papers
During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers. We here present some of the best and most widely read of these. They contain warnings of dangers from tyranny that weaknesses in the proposed Constitution did not adequately provide against, and while some of those weaknesses were corrected by adoption of the Bill of Rights, others remained, and some of these dangers are nowcoming to pass.
Chronology of the pro- and anti-federalist papers and how they related to one another and to key events….
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
January 27th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
ANY third party (Libertarian, Socialist, Tea Party, etc), all would likely fall prey to the same fate as the GOP and the Dems. By mere virtue of the fact that they would operate under the party governance rules, the same open terms, be exposed ot the same lobbyists, same continual campaigning/re-election concerns, etc etc -eventually it would end up proposing legislation written by some other group of paid lobbyists representing some special interest.
My $.02
You want reform at this late stage, you need the President to (at least on a temporary basis) go all ‘Chavez ‘on DC, declare emergency dictatorial powers that over ride Congress and the Courts and get some unilateral commissions to both start dismantling some of the crap legislative infrastructure thats in place and put in some fixes at bayonet point. Term limits, K Street lobbying restrictions, line item veto amendments, election finance reform, forced reduction of budgets by 50%, reduction of useless departments, reduction in foreign aid, military budgets, everything.
Same time, make it easier for small businesses to get started. Mirror the legislative environment of what it was like in Hong Kong, pre takeover, where for $50 and a couple of forms filled out, you could start a legal business in an afternoon. Country needs to stop trying to do everything for everyone, and that will never happen with our current captured Congressional processes. We need a reboot, probably by force.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Great Society = failure
Because it didn’t get rid of poor people. It only cut the number by half.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Voted for Nader in ’04 because he spoke out against the corporatocracy. The oligarchs control the government. In the 30′s the situation was the same and the labor movement sprang up. Unfortunately plenty of bloodshed and violence ensued before labor was able to assert itself in the political landscape.
I would imagine something along similar lines will have to happen for the status quo to change.
A President who was a political-economic genius is probably the only other out.
I voted for Obama in ’08, and he seems to be in over his head on the economic -political spectrum( more to be revealed maybe) or more likely, he’s a tool.
January 27th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Barry – how could reference that great PJ O’Rourke classic and NOT put an Amazon link to the book?!?!?!
http://www.amazon.com/Parliament-Whores-Humorist-Attempts-Government/dp/0802139701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264615042&sr=8-1
I have it on audio tape from the 80s, read by…..William H. Macy – it’s incredibly entertaining
January 27th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@ Mark
The Bill of Rights Trumps The Federalist Papers !
You won’t argue that Reagan wasn’t trying to use States Rights to deny fundamental human rights to those Americans of African descent in the Southern states, so you come up with the Federalist papers! Really! If you live in the U.S. you can hear anything at all pass for reasoned discussion.
Barry, this is why we need you to help recall the history of Ronald Reagan. It has at least one very somber and tragic moment for the American polity and the effects are still trotting their once sanctioned views around on this site.
SS
SS
January 27th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
IMO the resurgence of the “States Rights” movement was much more about abortion than race…
In any case, all of this is moot, because we can all agree that voting should now be One Corporate Person, One Vote — or, if employees choose to “opt in” to voting through their company acting as their proxy in exchange for whatever the unspoken-but-understood consequence of not doing so might be, well, you get the picture.
I’m thinking we should just follow the corporate model and sell voting and non-voting shares in the country. Non-voting shares may be repurchased at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Chairman and resold to third parties whenever a better offer comes along. For people unable to afford to buy a non-voting share in the country, they may obtain a LifetimeLoanTM from an authorized PharmaHedge broker in exchange for pledging their bodies and all rights thereto as collateral. Failure to maintain payments on your LifetimeLoanTM may, at the lender’s option, activate the acceleration provision, entitling the lender to have your body melted down into BioMulch and sold as BioScrap.
Have a nice day.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
SS,
I thought as much.
do me a favor, compare, and contrast, this: “The Bill of Rights Trumps The Federalist Papers !”, with: “…quite simply, the whole issue of ‘Federalism’ should be re-thought..
though, at the minimum, remember to Thank these dudes, that took the Time to Think, and Gave us this compendium..Anti-Federalist Papers…”
or, do yourself a favor, and spend some time, here http://www.rif.org/
January 27th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
No, No, No! A third party will just disquise corruption in more creative ways. The only possible solution if “direct democracy” where citizens vote directly to control really important issues like budgets for education, health care and the military. If the political hacks must be retained, only let them screw up minor issues thus minimizing the damage.
A third party is no solution and will just give us more shit – just ask the Swiss! How long will it take us to learn this?
January 27th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
The constitution has set the country up for a 2 party system. Any attempt to create a 3′rd party just creates a spoiler between the two. Even with the most wild optimism all you would end up with is that the 3′rd party will kill one of the two old ones and then you would be back to a two party system. The new party would eventually be taken over by the same types that are running the two current parties and you would be nowhere new. Might as well work on changing the old parties. If you can get the energy going to create a successful new party, you can certainly get the much less energy going required to change the old parties.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
@ Mark,
I’ve actually read the Federalist Papers. Excellent comparative government. However, what I am interested in discussing is not the abstract version but the use of local power to promote racial segregation, denial of fundamental rights and to divide American society. Your inability to address the subject shows that the ills Reagan promoted are still with us, as one can discover every day in the hate speech on the internet. I am sorry for you. Though not black or African American, I have suffered from these attitudes as a minority, and I can tell you no American, State, local or just plain old boy has the right to deny other American citizens their full participation in society.
SS
SS
January 27th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
What exactly is a “Pragmatic Independent?” I’m curious what part of their ideology is intellectually indefensible? As a conservative Republican I consider myself pragmatic and intellectual. I guess only independents and liberals are intellectuals, please. The problem at many levels of government is that there is a lack of willingness and selflessness to solve problems and to be honest. Our politicians have made entitlement promises (pensions and government entitlements) that cannot be paid in full without impacting future generations in a negative way. Ultimately, the politicians look at the taxpayer as a put option. The put the bill to us and expect us to pay. I agree there are very few statesmen left. Jacob Javitz and Daniel Moynihan were statesmen, but so were Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan. Reagan and Kemp didn’t shy away from their beliefs in conservatism.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
@call me ahab 7:13 A.M. post
two parties is perfect-
one to invade other countries- the other to give us great programs like the “great society”
**********
You add light to all issues that you address. It’s obvious that GWB got us into both Afghanistan & Iraq; and there is no argument about the cost in American “blood & treasure” spent & wasted.
However, since you mentioned the “great society,” it may well strike a nerve with any former draftee from the era of the Vietnam conflict (we haven’t declared war anytime since WWII). The Prez at that time (LBJ) went to Congress in August, 1964 and stated that 2 of our naval vessels (U.S.S. Maddox & U.S.S. C. Turner Joy) were fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin (off of Northe Vietnam). The Congress, in their infinite wisdom & patriotism, gave the Prez a blank check to “send in the cavalry.”
Eleven years later, after 50,000 plus American soldiers had ben killed in action, a couple of hundered thousand had been wounded/maimed and who knows how much “treasure” was wasted, we had the scene of Americans on the rooftop of the Saigon embassy being ferried away by helicopters with our “tail between our legs.”
Additionally, LBG got Medicare (Social Security Act of 1965) through Congress in 1965 using the same chicanery in its legislative language that has “helped” lead us to the financial mess that we’re in now.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
SS-
man your fucking boring-
learn a new song already- if it’s possible
January 27th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
re: 3:25 post — ERRATA
1.(off of NorthE Vietnam): let’s make it North
2. Additionally, LBG got: it’s not another Prez — still LBJ
January 27th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
A bit OT:
All of us regular folk (some call us “SHEEPLE”) — including most, if not all of the regular contributors here, pay and/or have paid significant amounts into both Social Security & Medicare via payroll taxes. They are NOT “entitlements for us!” I read the text of the original Social Security law & subsequent case law regarding its Constitutionality (e.g. Helvering v Davis). FDR, the Congress & SCOTUS did a magnificently evil deed in using
Article I, Section 8 (first clause):
“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 put it to the people again under the guise of helping destitute “old folks.”
From the Social Security website (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html) we got the following info about the “Old-Age & Survivors INSURANCE TRUST FUND:”
” A fixed proportion (dependent on the allocation of tax rates by trust fund) of the taxes received under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Self-Employment Contributions Act are deposited in the fund to the extent that such taxes are not needed immediately to pay expenses.”
Just for “grins,” I downloaded data on Social Security income caps & tax rates since 1959 — the year that I started working for a living, along with rates on a basket of Treasuries (5, 10 & 30 year maturities) into an Excel spreasheet. It was simple calculation to extract the COMPOUNDED amount if only the employee’s tax was used (for those of us/you that were self employed, the tax was double — of course, you know that!). The compounded amount over 45 years that my wife & I paid FICA taxes was large.
Extending the calculation, I subtracted withdrawals since we started & continued compounding the remaining balance (again at the average rate of the basket of Treasuries), and we’re supposed to “be in the black” for a LONG, LONG time!
The Federal Government must have had humongous expenses for Social Security in order for it to be on the verge of bankruptcy. Maybe they all attended the Bernie Madoff School of Accounting!
I know that arguments will be presented that the intent of the Act wasn’t to create a retirement account; but for all who are/were living real lives — working, having kids, buying homes (with at least 20% down) & MAYBE having a bit of recreation from time to time (a ball game, vacation — WHATEVER), the LAW created the “Old-Age & Survivors INSURANCE TRUST FUND” from which the balances were to be invested in U.S. Treasuries. It would be reasonable — at a glance at least — to infer that it was an INSURANCE TRUST FUND!
Anyone care to litigate FOR THE PEOPLE on this one?
January 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Anyone care to litigate FOR THE PEOPLE on this one?
@OTD: Give me a retainer of about $2 million and you can sic me on anybody you like.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Mannwich said “I’m officially on voter’s strike in the national elections.”
——–
The problem with that attitude is that whoever else actually casts a vote then gets to choose the winner. And you are then forced to live under their choice.
The reality is that we have no real choice with a 2-party system where the candidate is almost always the one who is able to raise the most money (and anyone who gives money to you generally expects something in return). Our only viable choice is to vote for the politician we perceive as “less bad”. And that is wrong.
I think we need a change of system. Maybe a Parliamentary system where a bunch of small parties are forced to cobble together a ruling majority?
January 27th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
re: 3:44 P.M. post ERRATA:
Was:
FDR, the Congress & SCOTUS did a magnificently evil deed in using
Article I, Section 8 (first clause):
“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 put it to the people again under the guise of helping destitute “old folks.”
Should read:
FDR, the Congress & SCOTUS did a magnificently evil deed in using Article I, Section 8 (first clause) of the Constitution to put it to the people again under the guise of helping destitute “old folks.”
“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)”
The Congress taxed the folks using this clause; then created a Benefit to be managed & disbursed at their discretion. They can even do away with the benefit if they choose!
Tough day at the keyboard. Sorry about that!
January 27th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
older than dirt;
You are doing retirement calculations on an insurance system. If you have had the great luck to live a long healthy life with no need to go on disability, you are not supposed to get all your money back. I pray and hope that the 20 year life insurance I got at the birth of my daughter will be a total waste of money.
Even the retirement part of social security actually has an insurance element to it. The more money you put in, the less you get back relatively, because it is supposed to insure you against poverty, not provide you with a comfortable retirement. Retirement funding is a private matter done in IRA’s and 401K’s without government administrators.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Is it Time for a 3rd Party?
Sure, I missed the first two. I’ll bring the beer.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
correction 3:25 post- you’re
OTD-
no doubt LBJ and Kennedy before him were instrumental in getting us in Vietnam- but outside of Congress’ complete collapse in granting power to Bush to commit troops- the Democrat’s haven’t been in the “war” game for a while
January 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Volunteers of America. If you take the money out of Politics and make it an ordinary Government Service job with open and disclosed transparent finances; you might end up with men the caliber of a Paul Volcker in positions of power. Flies and whores circle the money as much as drug dealers who take advantage of a bad situation and like Gresham’s Law drive away honest people from the business.
It’s a very bad joke that these representatives pass laws they don’t read but for promts from staffs enabled by lobbyists. Public Service should be an effort and worthy of support not a multi-million dollar interested party -financed power vehicle
January 27th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
With gratitude for your forum, BR. Is there a way you could incorporate an poster-edit feature so as not to see an inadvertent fat-fingered typo? …prompts for one. ZH has that nice touch. Props to you both.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
FrancoisT Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
@Patrick Neid:
Grayson was one of the victims of Derivium.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rep-alan-grayson-ponzi-scheme-victim-2009-7
Give me a break. It was a tax scam and he knew it. Read up on his participation. He was the biggest abuser. He deserved to get skinned. Now he’s crying like a sissy and suing, this is the best part, for 34 million because that is what he would have made had he just kept his stock to begin with. He’s a loser. Instead he’s out 3 million with possible tax ramifications. Like I said, a perfect congressman!
January 27th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
I don’t know if a third party would make a difference in this climate. My suspicion is that in time politics will become like the rest of society is becoming, that is fractured into special interest splinter groups. Already right now many, if not most people gravitate towards only listening to what they already believe in. We already see that in the news/blogosphere, we went from people like Walter Cronkite being a respected source of information for all, to blowhard gasbags like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck catering to members of their own ilk.
Ultimately it will take the public changing rather than the politicians to really affect any significant change. Just look at the responses in this very thread. The only thing people have in common today is the ability to point fingers and assign blame at someone else. We are our own wost enemies.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Could a couple of you bashers of the Tea Party Libertarian movement tell us all how a liberal democrat government that got us into 100 trillion – all in- debt would get us out of it. Liberals and democrats are childish and naive. They will realize this very soon when China and other responsible countries who are our bankers, stop lending us money.
Unless you dems come up with some amazing smoke and mirror math your days of the great society are over. You will be dragged kicking and screeming “no, no make the rich pay their fair share” away from your profligate broken socialist system. Our original intent was to form a country of strong independent hard working people with a government in the background and in check. We have turned into a nation of whiners that feel they are entitlted to the fruits of others labor.
The problem is when well over half the population works for or lives off the government it all breaks down. When we spend multiples of what we earn and borrow it from other countries so we can have an artificially high standard of living we eventually pay the price. That price has now begun; dark clouds will soak socialist democrtat dreams. Republicans have also been indoctrinated into this markist ideology and that is why the dominant trend for the last 100 years in this country has been more government, more taxes, more regulation, more spending and more borrowing. This is why we will have a third party. And if we don’t we are over.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
No matter how many times you refer to congress as a bunch of whores, we won’t forget that you refused to testify in front of Congress….to explain what went wrong and how to fix. Also, to call oneself a “pragmatic independent” is a cop out. You seem to be a left leaning person that doesn’t mind bigger government involvement in plenty of markets. And, that’s “OK,” too. It’s a free country, right?
January 27th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
As I have said repeatedly, I was invited on a very short notice (days) and could not cancel appointments of people flying to the US from Europe.
Regardless, its important to undestandthe farmer’s adage — never try to teach a pig to sing — its wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Andy T —
Your a sanctimonious little fucker aren’t you?
Other than chatting with your buds about technical charts, what’s your contribution?
(Being a snarky asshole doesn’t count).
Get over yourself.
January 27th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@ Ahab
You seem like a reasonable person so if you categorize yourself as one of the following:
1) not a racist
2) a racist who is incapable of learning
3) totally unconcerned that America is still a very racist country,
I suggest skipping my comments, unless of course you enjoy them!
SS
January 27th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
DeDude,
Thanks for the reply. In part it said:
“You are doing retirement calculations on an insurance system. If you have had the great luck to live a long healthy life with no need to go on disability, you are not supposed to get all your money back. I pray and hope that the 20 year life insurance I got at the birth of my daughter will be a total waste of money. ”
I make no pretension to be an insurance expert; but doesn’t a whole life policy return the face value of the policy at maturation?
Aside from that, I really truncated my post because what was done with the Social Security Act of 1935 seems to have been structured to “redistribute wealth.”
If you have the time, please read the SCOTUS opinion at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0301_0619_ZO.html.
Title VII of the Law describes the 2 types of taxes being levied:
1) An income tax on employees &
2) An excise tax on employers.
Title II defines the “Old Age Benefits.”
A couple of points of interest to me:
1) FDR evidently had “threatened” to pack SCOTUS because there were too many conservative old white men sitting as justices. This supposed threat may well have had an influence on the court’s opinion.
2) Taxes (Title VII) began almost immediately after the law passed Constitutional muster (1937) but benefits only began in 1942.
In light of current proposals re: Health Care Reform (i.e. taxes begin almost immediately; benefits begin 3-5 years later — depending on which version of the proposed bill one reads.
There’s not much new under the sun in Washington D.C. At least they could try to be a bit more creative –NOT!
I could go on and on and … but this is enough for now.
Thanks again for sharing your insights.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
call me ahab -
Thanks for providing the correction.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the party affiliation. The vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in the Senate had only 2 Nays — Wayne Morse & Ernest Gruening. The rest lined up behind the Prez. Even Barry Goldwater voted Aye.
As a class, politicians rank somewhat lower than a snake’s belly.
To change the system, citizens need to:
1) Become informed — not from TV, but do some reading from primary reliable sources.
2) Become involved. Elections can work if we engage.
Thanks again ahab!
January 27th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
What is offensive about the ‘so called’ religious right?
It is rather convenient to take a wide spread belief and capsulise it into a term.
Nonetheless, are these not American citizens with a view?
Atheism is a religion – is it offensive.
Agnosticism is a religion – is it offensive.
Judaism is a religion – is it offensive.
Catholicism and Protestantism are religions – are they offensive.
What is your faith – is it offensive?
January 27th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
You are overlooking my main point — its not about religion, but its about bringing specific religious views into politics, and not respecting the 1st sentence of the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Mine is a more traditional American view — that government should keep its nose out of religion and religion should return the favor.
Remember the groups that fled religious persecution in England and came to the New World? Recall the Church of England was dictating what religious beliefs were allowable — and those who disagreed were persecuted. That’s why the US Constitution specifically prohibited any establishment of religion — any marriage — between Church and State.
I believe politicizing religion for electoral purposes violates the spirit of the Constitution. And I also believe that spirit is similarly violated by people trying to religify government.
One of the great freedoms the United States has offered is the freedom to worship whatever God you want however you want. The embracing of the religious right by one party violates that spirit, in my opinion.
It may be ironic, but its true: The persecuted often go from being Oppressed to being the Oppressor.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
As a minimal reform of the political system I would like to see ballots include the option of “none of the above”. This would do at least 2 things. First, it would give a disaffected electorate an option other than holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. Secondly, it would bankrupt parties that did not put up candidates that truly had wide spread appeal because eventually the Washington whores will run out of corporate John’s who can’t get what they paid for.
My dream scenario is for a wildly popular ethical independent candidate to be elected president who then brings in a killer, take a pound of flesh attorney general that will pursue both major parties under there RICO statutes.
In lieu of these two highly unlikely scenarios maybe we need to establish a citizens politician crime stoppers rewards program. It would be interesting to see how nervous some of these bastards would get when there are millions of dollars in rewards being offered for people that can provide information to bring them down. We will of course need BR and the boys at Fusion to conservatively manage the millions while we pursue the rats. How’s that for a revolution…assassinate the bastard with fact rather than lead.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Gentlemen:
While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.
If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.
The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.
May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.
May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.
-G. Washington
“Letter to the Jews of Newport”, 18 August 1790
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2009/08/02/oldest_active_us_synagogue_opens_visitors_center/
January 28th, 2010 at 9:21 am
“…I believe politicizing religion for electoral purposes violates the spirit of the Constitution. And I also believe that spirit is similarly violated by people trying to religify government.
One of the great freedoms the United States has offered is the freedom to worship whatever God you want however you want. The embracing of the religious right by one party violates that spirit, in my opinion.
It may be ironic, but its true: The persecuted often go from being Oppressed to being the Oppressor.”
–BR, above
good point, BR.
~~
“..I’ve actually read the Federalist Papers. Excellent comparative government. However, what I am interested in discussing is not the abstract version but the use of local power to promote racial segregation, denial of fundamental rights and to divide American society….”–SS, above
SS,
you, still, don’t read well, do you?
I was talking about the Anti-Federalist Papers.
here’s, another, link http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/
and, try this one
Antifederalist No. 11 UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
and, remember, Boycotts work.
~~
though, here’s betting, you own a House-Full of Goods–Made in the P.R.O.C..
~~
and, in case your comprehension isn’t, yet, up to speed, here’s http://www.rif.org/ another point-out for you..
they do good work, and make the subject accessible.
ac·ces·si·ble (k-ss-bl)
adj.
1. Easily approached or entered.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accessible
January 28th, 2010 at 9:58 am
My dear Mr. Hoeffer,
You indeed sound like a racist pest for I was not addressing states rights or the validity of constitutional protections but rather the use of states rights to justify racism, something which apparently you are too racist to comment on.
Let me quote you from above, : “they (the anti-federalist papers) contain warnings of dangers from tyranny that weaknesses in the proposed Constitution did not adequately provide against, and while some of those weaknesses were corrected by adoption of the Bill of Rights….”
You may recall above that I raised the Bill of Rights in objection to Ronald Reagan’s use of states rights to promote racist policies in the South. You may also know if you actually read the federalist Papers, instead of indulging in as many justifications for your racist views as possible, that Madison in Federalist 10 raises the issue of “tyranny of the majoriy” and discusses it at length, raising many of the points in the anti-federalist papers though he was for the Constitution.
I would only hope that if you do plan to seceed from the Union, something which doesn’t interest me in the least as an abstract question of comparative government, that whatever polity you develop e.g., “free Texas” would not be racist among the many other possible ills I might imagine. From your unwillingness to engage, Ronald Reagan’s use of racism, the actual subject of my comment, I have my strong doubts in this regard.
Cheerio
SS
January 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
SS,
you’re a walking example of why “Educational” Institutions, as well, should be able to be “Shorted out of Existence”.
past that, What, about being “the Supreme Law of the Land”, don’t you understand?
and, can you comprehend that No State can make Laws in contravention of the Constitution?
see: Supremacy Clause, and, further..
“…Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation “is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the[p.921]State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States—‘the supreme law of the land’.”18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.19 While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.20 The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law,21 it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts.
Supremacy Clause Versus the Tenth Amendment
The logic of the supremacy clause would seem to require that the powers of Congress be determined by the fair reading of the express and implied grants contained in the Constitution itself, without reference to the powers of the States. For a century after Marshall’s death, however, the Court proceeded on the theory that the Tenth Amendment had the effect of withdrawing various matters of internal police from the reach of power expressly committed to Congress. This point of view was originally put forward in New York City v. Miln,22 which was first argued but not decided before Marshall’s death. The Miln case involved a New York statute which required the captains of vessels entering New York Harbor with aliens aboard to make a report in writing to the Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. It might have been distinguished from Gibbons v. Ogden on the ground that the statute involved in the earlier case conflicted with an act of Congress,[p.922]whereas the Court found that no such conflict existed in this case. But the Court was unwilling to rest its decision on that distinction.
Speaking for the majority, Justice Barbour seized the opportunity to proclaim a new doctrine. “But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”23 Justice Story, in dissent, stated that Marshall had heard the previous argument and reached the conclusion that the New York statute was unconstitutional.24…”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art6_user.html
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
but, per usual, remember, Reading Is Fundamental, even, before one starts discussing Rights..
January 28th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
“Barry Ritholtz Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
As I have said repeatedly, I was invited on a very short notice (days) and could not cancel appointments of people flying to the US from Europe.
Understand all that well. It was just a bit of a ‘let down’ for some of your fans….
January 28th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“GMT Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Andy T —
Your a sanctimonious little fucker aren’t you?
Other than chatting with your buds about technical charts, what’s your contribution?
(Being a snarky asshole doesn’t count).
Get over yourself.”
What’s there to get over? I’m just some guy who does a bunch of charts and is involved with trading. I pretend to be nothing else. I love economists like Steve Keen (loved that BR posted a Keen video a few weeks ago) and I’m a Libertarian/”super less government is better” type of person….will gladly discuss those issues as they come up.
Peace.