Ammendment to Have Debt Increases Approved by State Legislatures Proposed →

On Tuesday, Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ) introduced H.J.Res 99, the National Debt Relief Amendment (NDRA). This constitutional amendment would require approval from a majority of states before Washington increases the federal debt level.

Oh, what a wonderful idea. This is exactly what this country needs, more gridlock when raising the debt ceiling. We can barely raise it now because of all of the political brinkmanship, and this guy wants to add another component to the already sluggish machine.

But beyond delaying the process, we’d just never get the debt ceiling raised ever again. It’s a well known fact that state legislatures tend to be more radical than Congress, regardless of whether the state leans to the left or the right. In Congress, we all know that the ceiling with eventually be raised, because no matter what, the people in charge of the parties on a national scale know that not raising the debt ceiling has the ability to tank our country’s economy. In state legislatures, however, most people just don’t give a shit.

A Gallup poll from last January found that people who identify as either “conservative” or “very conservative” would rather politicians stick to their principles than actually get anything done. They want gridlock. What’s significant about this, though, is that this is how the conservative members of legislatures in states like Nebraska and Alabama think. If a proposal to raise the debt ceiling came up for a vote, it’s clear that it would be shot down in nearly all of the red states.

But beyond the issue of the debt ceiling not being able to be raised and the resulting crash of the world economy (I know…… but there’s more, trust me), is that the very reason that the amendment was proposed is flawed. This is taken directly from Rep. Schweikert’s press release:

Washington has demonstrated an inability to rein in its reliance on debt and continues to mortgage our future with more borrowing, spending, and bailouts.

Conservatives continue to use the phrase “mortgaging our future” (we can probably thank Mr. Frank Luntz for that), regardless of the fact that when the U.S. government borrows money, it is nothing at all like when a family borrows money from a bank. When the government borrows money, it never has to pay it back. As Paul Krugman wrote in his recent article “Nobody Understands Debt”:

The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

If a family didn’t repay their debt for 70 years, I think they might be in trouble.

What I’m getting at is that the debt shouldn’t be as pressing an issue as politicians are making it. The legitimate economic fear related to debt is called “Crowding Out”. This idea says that when a government borrows too much, it raises interest rates throughout the country, thus decreasing internal private investment. However, that just hasn’t happened. Despite our large debt, interest rates are still at historic lows.

This amendment would even be counterproductive. Everyone knows that, as of now, the United States will not default on its debt, so our interest rates stay low. If this amendment were to pass, it could rid investors of that perception of security. If investors don’t feel comfortable buying U.S. debt, then interest rates will rise.

So congratulations Mr. Schweikert, you win this month’s competition for shitty legislation.

Amongst the wave of websites closing their doors for a day, an new site can be seen: AbortionDocs.org. While I’m wary to even link to such a site, I think that to truly understand how much damage this can do, you should visit it.

This website collects information on abortion doctors (or even people who are just involved in abortions… they have different categories) and organizes it neatly by state and keywords. Right now, you might be saying, “Dan, what’s so bad about a lowly database of information about abortion doctors, complete with pictures and addresses?” Well, I’ll tell you!

In the past, anti-abortion activists have distributed “Wanted” posters with detailed information about abortion providers. Such information included pictures, both work and home addresses, and even descriptions of their cars in some cases. Now, you see…. this funny thing tends to happen after these kinds of posters are distributed: The abortion doctors die.

The most famous case of this is the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider in Kansas, and local anti-choice activists had given him the nickname “Tiller the Baby Killer”. While he wasn’t actually killed until 2009, he was under fire since the early 90s. In 1985, his clinic was bombed, and in 1993, he was shot in both of his arms.

All that this website does is facilitate the distribution of virtual “Wanted” posters. Now, individual posters need not be created. Instead, all these activists have to do is enter the information in each doctor’s profile, and let the internet do the rest of the work. With this mass distribution of sensitive information, it is inevitable that more abortion doctors will suffer casualties.

Just this week, an abortion doctor in North Carolina said that he fears for his life because such posters are being circulated about him.

This culture of fear needs to end. This website needs to be taken down.

No one should ever feel endangered for helping women act upon their right to choose what happens with their own body.

conservativebrew:

Religious Liberty 9, Obama 0

What the article failed to mention was that the main debate was over whether or not the school teacher who was let go was technical a “minister”. If she was determined to be a minister (which she eventually was), then the ministerial exception would come in to play, which says that the government cannot interfere with religious groups choosing who their leaders are.

Since she was a teacher at the school, and not specifically a minister, it was highly possible that this case would not fall under that exception, and this doubt is what drove the case to the Supreme Court. However, because this particular teacher had received extensive religious training, and because this religious training was a main reason that this church chose her to be a teacher at their school, it was decided that she could technically be declared a “minister”. It should also be noted that she took her students to services and taught some religious matters to them.

The above article is terribly misleading, as it also leaves out the fact that there were two concurrent opinions written, despite the decision being unanimous. Justices Altio and Kagan wrote that, because giving religious groups full freedom over who they hire and fire could lead to discrimination, the ministerial exception should be made more specific. They wrote that it “should apply to any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

So, I’m all for this decision. It was the right one. However, this decision does not represent, in any way, an attack on religion by the Obama administration. There were doubts and vague ideas that needed to be interpreted further, and that’s what the Supreme Court is there for.

Treasury Reports 38th Straight Month of Deficits →

conservativebrew:

liberalyouth:

conservativebrew:

Let’s do some simple math:

From January 2008 to January 2009 = 12 months

From January 2009 to January 2010 = 12 months

From January 2010 to the present   = 11 months, thus:

12+12+11 = 35 months.

President Obama has been in office for 35 of the 38 months that our deficit has been in the red. Therefore:

35/38 x 100% = 92%

It can thus be mathematically proven that 92% this downfall all occured on Barack Obama’s watch while a mere 8% occured during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Your math is correct, but your conclusion is severely flawed. First of all, the report only mentions the number of consecutive months that we have been in the red.

When George W. Bush was President, our country was in the red for a total of 60 months. This means that 62.5% percent of the time he was in office, we ran up a spending deficit. So, to blame our entire problem with deficits and debt on Obama is absurd, given the data.

Second of all, the U.S. was not officially in a recession until the 4th quarter of 2008, just as Bush was leaving office. By 2010, the economy was growing again, while the trend of negative GDP growth had turned around after the 2nd quarter of 2009. So, the actual downfall occurred while Bush was President, while Obama was just left with a mess to clean up.

In the end, you can continue to blame Obama for the recession and throw bogus statistics around. However, that would be the equivalent of me knocking over a pile of blocks, leaving the room, and then accusing the next person to enter the room of knocking down the blocks. Seems a little juvenile, doesn’t it?

Reconcile:

65% is to 8 years as 92% is to 3 years. Then:

65/8 x 100 =  8.13%

92/3 x 100 = 30.7%

Obama enlarged the deficit 3.7x as much as Bush. :-)

This time, your calculations are flawed.

Months in the red does not equal the total debt number. If you want to find out how much each President increased the debt, then you need to look at the actual deficit numbers, which are all given in one of the links in my previous response. I would look, but I honestly am just too lazy. However, there are reasons as to why this is true.

As the debt increases, so does the amount of interest that must be paid on it. So, under Obama, the debt will increase significantly more than under Bush simply because of the fact that we are paying more in interest. This is why people tend not to measure by the total number, but rather the percentage that was the debt was increased by. So far, Obama has increased the debt by about 35% percent, but in Bush’s last term, he increased the debt by 40%. Keep in mind that Bush’s last term barely includes any part of the financial crisis.

One must also take into account that the spending deficit approved for Bush’s last fiscal year budget was larger than any deficit passed by the Obama administration, which just goes to show that even the initial happenings of the financial crisis greatly affected the deficit. When you look at the fact that Obama has passed all of his budgets while within the crisis, it is easier to see the 35% increase and not flinch.

Treasury Reports 38th Straight Month of Deficits →

conservativebrew:

Let’s do some simple math:

From January 2008 to January 2009 = 12 months

From January 2009 to January 2010 = 12 months

From January 2010 to the present   = 11 months, thus:

12+12+11 = 35 months.

President Obama has been in office for 35 of the 38 months that our deficit has been in the red. Therefore:

35/38 x 100% = 92%

It can thus be mathematically proven that 92% this downfall all occured on Barack Obama’s watch while a mere 8% occured during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Your math is correct, but your conclusion is severely flawed. First of all, the report only mentions the number of consecutive months that we have been in the red.

When George W. Bush was President, our country was in the red for a total of 60 months. This means that 62.5% percent of the time he was in office, we ran up a spending deficit. So, to blame our entire problem with deficits and debt on Obama is absurd, given the data.

Second of all, the U.S. was not officially in a recession until the 4th quarter of 2008, just as Bush was leaving office. By 2010, the economy was growing again, while the trend of negative GDP growth had turned around after the 2nd quarter of 2009. So, the actual downfall occurred while Bush was President, while Obama was just left with a mess to clean up.

In the end, you can continue to blame Obama for the recession and throw bogus statistics around. However, that would be the equivalent of me knocking over a pile of blocks, leaving the room, and then accusing the next person to enter the room of knocking down the blocks. Seems a little juvenile, doesn’t it?

Rick Perry just complained that Obama “sat back and let a radical Islamist lead Egypt.” He is obviously referring to the fact that the Muslim Bortherhood did well in the Egyptian parliamentary elections.

So Mr Perry, here is my question. Would you be okay with foreign nations interfering in our elections if we voted for fundamentalist Christians?

Millionaires Want Higher Taxes →

alexholzbach:

liberalyouth:

68% of millionaires polled want taxes to be raised on millionaires.

64% of Americans want taxes to be raised on millionaires.

Just fucking do it already.

If these “patriotic” millionaires would like higher taxes, they can donate to the United States Treasury! Unfortunately, though, each and every one of them asked to do so refused.

So, they aren’t willing to give up their money unless everyone else does - and that’s exactly what they want to do. “No, I won’t donate my money, I want the government to force everyone like me to pay!”

These people refuse to be gracious donors and instead want the state to use aggressive force and violence to steal money from people. How noble.

It is noble. They are making a statement. To simply donate their own money would not solve the problem of the incredibly low tax rate on people such as themselves. One even said, “Taxes are not charity… . They’re not voluntary. They are something that society commits to do together.”

Exactly. The whole point of this movement was to illustrate that not all millionaires want lower taxes, which is what much on the right have portrayed.

If they donated their money right there, the movement would probably be over. Everyone would just be like, “Well, they paid what they wanted to, we can all go home now.” But the idea is to make it so that there will be a continuous solution to the problem of our debt by raising the tax rate for all millionaires. Plus, a few thousand dollars from each of them would not have done much to the deficit, while raising the tax rate would.

(via alexholzbach-deactivated2012092)

alexholzbach:

confessionsofateenagepundit:

RAISING TAXES RAISES REVENUE AND LOWERS DEFICIT.

How hard is that to understand? Really, people!

You’re most certainly correct in this statement. On the flip side:

CUTTING SPENDING REDUCES EXPENSES AND LOWERS DEFICIT.

Here we have two deficit-cutting ideas, which we can both agree cut the deficit. If we make more money, we have more money. If we spend less of our money, we have more money. This is basic.

Now, here’s the difference. In your scenario, the government proposes lowering the deficit by stealing from its citizens; literally threatening them with violent force to give them money. My idea, on the other hand, proposes the government spending less money (and therefore stealing much less from the people).

Why is it that the left generally prefers stealing more from the people than simply cutting back on what they spend? 

Calling taxes “stealing” is a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn’t you say? Actually, I take that back. It’s more of a lie.

The idea of the social contract is that the government fulfills its goals (in this case, the preamble of the Constitution), and in return, the people give up some of their rights (the right to keep all of their money). If we had no taxes, the government would not be able to function; We saw this under the Articles of Confederation.

Going back to the original point of contention: Yes, us on the left do tend to propose increasing government spending and, in turn, taxes. This is because we do not spend enough money on the right causes, and this results in the citizens not being truly protected by their government. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure the “general welfare”, but how can it claim to be doing so when we have people going bankrupt and dying in this country all because they were unlucky enough to come down with a serious illness. Better yet, it probably had nothing to do with luck. Maybe the person grew up poor and couldn’t afford preventative care from childhood onwards?

Actually though, us on the left do like to propose cuts as well as tax increases. We should cut defense spending. We’ve built engines and planes that the military doesn’t even want, just so that the defense contractors can remain rich. But, being a Ron Paul fan, I’m sure you agree with me there.

You have to understand though, the reason that tax increases are okay right now is because of the historically low effective tax rate in America. The top income bracket is currently paying less than 40% as a baseline, and most pay much less than that due to capital gains only being taxed at 15%.

Warren Buffet pays less of his income in taxes than his secretary does.

GE got a $3+ billion tax rebate last year.

Those are problems.

Hopefully, in my ranting, my point got across.

(Source: raucouscaucus, via alexholzbach-deactivated2012092)

The Next Birther Target

Marco Rubio, Tea-Party sweetheart from Florida, has become the latest target of the birthers since Obama released his long-form birth certificate earlier this year.

The argument from these birthers, mainly Charles Kerchner and Orly Taitz (who are apparently notable figures within the movement?), is that, despite Rubio being born on American soil, the fact that his parents were not citizens when he was born makes him not a natural citizen. You see, Rubio was born in 1971, but his parents, who had emigrated from Cuba, did not become U.S. citizens until 1975. As a result, these birthers are making the argument that, if he were to run for president (and his name has been thrown around as an option in the future), he would not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement of the office.

As you may have guessed, this argument is complete and utter bullshit.

Whereas their case against Obama was based in rumor, the case against Rubio has absolutely no base at all. Why, you may ask? Well, it might be because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this exact issue.

Enter the United States v Wong Kim Ark. It’s a case from 1898.. you know, back when those darn Chinese Exclusion Acts were still in place. Those, along with treaties, prevented Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens in America. Wong, however, was born in San Francisco. His parents were immigrants, and therefore not citizens themselves, and they even moved back to China eventually. When Wong was 21, he decided to go visit his parents in China. To his surprise, he could not re-enter the United States after his visit on the grounds that he “was not a citizen”. At this point, I’m assuming Wong yelled, “I was fucking born here, you assholes!” at the customs agents denying him entry. But after that, he decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As it turns out, we have this pesky thing called the Fourteenth Amendment which grants anyone born under the jurisdiction of the United States American citizenship. The dissent tried to argue that, since his parents were not citizens, he was not a citizen (sound familiar?). However, in a 6-2 ruling, the SCOTUS decided that Wong was, in fact, a natural born citizen due to the fact that he was born under the jurisdiction of America.

So, I’m no law student (still got that whole “high school” thing going on), but I’m pretty sure that this case rules out any possibility of Rubio being denied the presidency if he were to ever gain it… And trust me, I really hope he doesn’t.

Who’s Ready for a Math Lesson?

Last Friday, I brought a statistic reported by the Economic Policy Institute to the attention of my Economics teacher. The stat is that, as of July of last year, there were 5 unemployed people for every one job opening. He didn’t believe me and then continued on to call the EPI a “communist organization”. So, being the nerd that I am, I decided to work things out for myself, using July of this year for my analysis instead.

Let’s begin, shall we?

By the end of July, there were 13.1 million people unemployed and still looking for work (aka people who were counted in the unemployment rate), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Also at this time, there were 3.413 million job openings. Now, as your average 4th grader learning long division (or rather, anyone with a 4-function calculator) could tell you, that works out to about 4 people per job opening. And that’s just for people looking for work.

Next, you can factor in the amount of people who are a part of the labor force and don’t have a job, but are just not currently looking for work. These are what the BLS likes to call “discouraged workers” or “marginalized workers”, so called because many have simply given up on the system after being unemployed for so long. There are about 12 million more of these people on top of those who are classified as “unemployed”. If we add on those people to our previous calculations, we end up with more than 7 people without work per job opening.

So, while I don’t even begin to credit myself as an economist, it turns out that the people over at the EPI seem to credit themselves as such. In August, they released updated statistics that confirm the 4 people per job opening number we arrived at earlier. While they don’t touch on the number that deals with people who have stopped looking for work, I’m fairly confident in the number.

To go further with this, this is exactly why the OccupyWallStreet movement began: because the system is broken, and it needs to be changed. Currently, we have conservatives actually blaming the unemployed for not having a job, when the odds are against them from the very moment they start looking for a job. 

I think that Herman Cain and those over at the 53 Percent should take a look at this, and hopefully they will think before the next time that they tell an unemployed person to “just get a job”.