jackson33

Pangloss, It's kind of hard to imagine any 'Household' living on $13,000, however I am sure any hope of working their way out of what must be pure poverty, is limited. Then I don't know how much is net loss on that suggested $1,000 expense, but the dreaming of someday hitting the big one may be beneficial in a psychological way, otherwise called entertainment.

forufes; Out of curiosity, do you think Israel is stopping AID, or just maybe military weapons??? I feel sure if Israel received the aid, they would somehow forward on to Gaza even though it would be supporting a sworn enemy, for the most part. My two cents.....

Some idea's on how to turn things around; The preferred way and keeping to some status quo, would be to increase the GDP (Economy) by the quickest means possible. Of course, most of any ideas are the reverse of 2008-2010 Federal policy; A- At least a one year moratorium on all payroll taxes, on wages to 65K$, from for the employee and employer, preferable two years. I have no way of breaking down what percentages of incomes their are over 65k$, but the average American worker pay is around 35-40k$. The 2009 revenue was 891B$, so I suspect, for one year it would be far less than the 2009 Stimulus Bill, would guess 600B$ and would have saved countless millions of jobs and no telling how many created job. B- Place a five year moratorium on Federal Mandates (regulations) and reverse anything in current practice, back to at least 2006. What auto's were required in 2006, to sell or similar product (lawn mower to big rig trucks) requirement would. C- Place a 1 year moratorium on all Interstate Regulation of Trucking in the US. Major companies spend billions on permits, inspections and legal fees, passing on a portion of what everything cost the consumer. D- Freeze all Federal Employees and Government Workers (2.2M) benefit packages at what ever they were in 2008. For instance the average Congress person receives around 1M$ for travel and incidental expense, per year as of 2010 and would be actually reduced to 800K$ or less. I could dream up maybe 40 other items, that could reverse, especially in hind site would have (though did make these suggestions in Nov. 2008 in reference to what Obama could do if he wished), but I think you get the point. The follow up program, simultaneously being worked out is Privatization of, SS and all Federal Medical Programs, since this would have to be grand fathered in over years. There are several potential way's this could be done.... To repeat from another thread think here; Remove the Federal Government from Federal Income Taxes, leaving it to the States by their population. This would prevent a Federal Mandating to the States and allow States to determine, what Government should cost. The big argument where anything like this is mention, States with Emergencies are liable for their own emergencies. I think you will find a whole lot less "SO CALLED" emergencies, as Tennessee has just experienced, with out assistance. What can today be called an emergency (declaring of one, for Federal Aid), most would not have been granted this status, just 30 years ago. bascule; A good share of the TARP Money has been paid back with interest, now in some kind of slush fund. The derivatives didn't cause the Housing bubble, depreciation of real estate values (the bubble) caused to the devaluation of the derivatives. More than any amount of lost moneys by that Housing bubble alone, would be dwarfed by what devaluation has been and remains lost in the Worlds' loss in Equities Value by the investor, probably you being one holding a 401k... On the Debt, it's bad and IMO the US should have paid off any debt before bringing in ANY social program. Having said that and having used this link before, note the CURRENT unfunded liabilities of the Federal (near 110T$, which in reality to a person would be REAL debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Who ever wanted to know how much US Cash is in circulation, it's less than -1- Trillion dollars and then for the most part spread out around the world. The Federal does own 30% of all land in the US and could sell off a portion alone, to pay off a 20T$ debt tomorrow, probably a good share to land owners adjacent to the Federal, most are leasing some already. Who ever mentioned 'Gold Certificates' and a responder; We had a 'Silver Certificate' for a very long time which could be traded in to ANY bank for a silver dollar and prices were determined on that value. Trying to determine the value of a held backing (gold/silver/other) for all the different currencies today and the 307B people they represent, would be worse than using the 'faith and trust' of the most stable societies.

In this discussion, it's been my argument, that 'Separation of Powers' is the vital issue involved noting from other threads, reducing cost of Government should be the duty of Congress, not the executive. The Executive as no designed power to either lower of raise revenues, it should not have any roll, other than constitutionally implied (veto power), in the formation of legislation. My argument are based on the following;

From the summery;

Pangloss/CR; Here is the related part of the US Constitution; Article I Section 7.

I don't know if it's a great question (Pangloss), but I'm somewhat curious about the reason for asking it. To my knowledge, who and where guns are allowed are controlled by the States. But yes, I would think the business owner could deny access, where otherwise the law would allow the idea, same with smoking or wearing a shirt or maybe shoes.

CR; Whether the President or jackson33 submits a suggested bill to either house of Congress, it represents the same power, put another way only Congress can legislate, Congress can ignore both. While I was arguing Bolten's argument and feel a valid one, something is not making sense. If the President is suggesting something he already has the right to do (asking for reconsideration of a law, is NOT one), there must be something going unsaid. Any BILL, spending or otherwise, that properly (uncontested legally) and signed by the President is then law, whatever happens after the fact meaningless, short of an outright bill to appeal the entirety. The current Health Bill, which is law today and being revised and implemented (changed around by the Executive), is already arguably not irrepealably, under the Constitution, short of the Constitutionality of the Bill itself or a substantial part of the Bill, where only the SC can overturn, THEN as written. I'll go back to my first comments; This is probably political rhetoric or the assumption the electorate will feel the Administration is trying in some manner to balance future debt. If I'm even close in my assumptions/accusations, it must be coming from the childish minds with no intentions of ever practicing the policies suggested. I have no other way to explain my feelings. As always, when I'm speaking of interpretation of law, it's my opinion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPangloss; Do you know I'm missing FNC, nightly propaganda, to reply. Amendment are voted on BEFORE the bill CAN be voted on, not after the BILL becomes law. When the President SIGNS the bill, it is LAW.

CR;

bascule;

While I agree, business entities (retail/production/service) should be allowed to hire, fire or cater to whomever they please (English only/dress codes) I agree, race between the whomevers shouldn't be applied and as is, is against law. Frankly, I can't imagine a business that would use the authority today, but in the past since those laws were enacted, many might just as well put signs out, saying no Hispanics (know about) and assume Blacks or maybe others, not allowed. Attitude is very hard to hide and just as objectionable as any sign. As for Rand Paul, he just closed my earlier case on his National Stage appearance, it won't happen and may have hurt his current bid. If those here are any indication of what some media is spinning "I am abundantly confident that Rand Paul is NOT a racist. iNow", then it may not hurt this year.

Charon; I'm sure there are some repeat child offenders (this case was) or cases where younger children that are tried as Adults (different in all States), but normally folks under 18 and tried in Juvenal Courts/Criminal Court, never receive what adults would in Criminal Courts, much less life with out parole. It's really not that common for Adults, at least the W/O parole part... iNow, I happen to agree with you here; I don't know what the actual cost per year is or will be in the future, but I do know that cost is far more than an effort to rehabilitate anyone, especially the younger folks. Another thing that really bothers me, is putting first time inmates in with lifers (in many cases) where all kinds of psychological events WILL influence them for life, with or without them changing attitudes.

iNow quotes;

iNow; Your links and on your post....