Posted by: Timothy Ellis (The Tim)

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

472 responses to “Politics & Economics Open Thread”

These comments are paged! This is page 3. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 4 5
  1. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 200

    Let me redirect you, again, to the point of this particular discussion. This clip is from Spain where millions of people were encouraged to buy homes, but lost them when the economy tanked: http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    This is what some people call the beginning of the Occupy movement that began in 2007.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 201 – Let me direct you. Columbus set sail in 1492. That started the Occupy movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 202

    Watch the clip so you have some basic understanding of the situation. In Spain there is no walking away from a mortgage, the same in Greece, and Italy. The situations there will get much worse, and any news report that tells you there is a deal in place, or that there is a solution, is only political. It doesn’t address the very real devastation it has done to the people of those countries.

    So talking around the issue of how we can fix anything with the United States political system is naive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. David Losh

    and this is what’s going on today:

    “MADRID — Hundreds of thousands of protesters were marching throughout Spain on Sunday in the first large-scale show of anger over new labor reforms that make it easier for companies to fire workers and pull out of collective bargaining agreements.

    Spain’s main trade unions organized marches in 57 cities, beginning midmorning in southern Cordoba. Some events that had been planned for later in the day, such as in eastern Valencia, had to be brought forward because of the early buildup of large crowds.

    Union organizers said around 1 million people had marched by mid-afternoon, but official figures were not released.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 204 – So you think the Occupy movement is responsible for the existence of unions?

    BTW, that type of protest makes a lot more sense than camping out in a park for months on end.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 205

    The camping out started in Spain, if you would look at the first link: http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    That protest was also broken up, and since 2007 politicians have caved into business interests. This last protest was about collective bargaining rights, and worker rights. Evidently those rights are being eroded so that Spain can get employers a better deal in order to compete.

    Like I said, you are throwing out repeated red herrings, or it may just be red baiting in general. If the wealthy want workers, they need to pay them a living wage. The way things are going we are going to have an under paid global work force so a very few can profit.

    It’s not going to work out.

    Maybe you are unfamiliar with how things work in Europe. When workers want something they shut down services. Trains, planes, and boats routinely stop for hours on end. What this new legislation does is make it easier to fire people who protest.

    As I said, many comments in the past, protest is better than militancy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 6 – Me throwing stuff out? You’re the one throwing out all these things that have nothing to do with accomplishments of the OWS movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 207

    You don’t want to understand. The accomplishmnets are daily, incremental, and constant. It’s a global movement of educating people.

    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it. You don’t want to see that millions of people want a fair deal. They are tired of paying taxes so a very few can benefit.

    So while the Tea Party is having meetings, and the one goal they have is being elected, the Occupy Wall Street movement has developed a global network. I, personally, am kind of impressed by the impact they are having.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. Trigger

    The problem with Spain is that they are not following the US remedy: Print, Then Print some more and then go for a hike and relax. Id sb has a cash flow problem – give him some cash and then the cash flow problem is fixed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. Kary L. Krismer

    By David Losh @ 208:

    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 210

    Click the first link, and watch the video. http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    You’ll see Occupy Wall Street is an extension of a more established movement.

    The second part is about worker rights.

    Occupy Wall Street is more than a fringe group. It’s a long established movement that is a part of something global. I’d say the world will change, but we know it won’t. It will be next time, and the time after that.

    What I do know is that Occupy Wall Street will attempt to influence the elections. In my opinion that’s why they started last year.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. Trigger

    RE: David Losh @ 211 – David – the problem with this group is that they do not like bankers to have a lot of bonuses. But in modern economy the capital determines who gets employed, which company makes it. Bankers rule the world and this is why they were the first to get bailed out. This is also why we print and then print some more cash. It is all for a good cause. People do not realize how bankers are important to all of us and we should cherish them as much as possible. We should all hope bankers get bigger bonuses next year and you should as well.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. pfft

    By Trigger @ 209:

    The problem with Spain is that they are not following the US remedy: Print, Then Print some more and then go for a hike and relax. Id sb has a cash flow problem – give him some cash and then the cash flow problem is fixed.

    you are right. don’t print though, just sell new bonds. worked here. don’t go for a hike though because you now have a job.

    almost 2 years into austerity and it’s failed miserable. that is not in dispute.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. pfft

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:

    By David Losh @ 208:
    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    OWS had union involvement…it;s like you don’t want to know anything about the movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. pfft

    By Trigger @ 12:

    RE: David Losh @ 211 – David – the problem with this group is that they do not like bankers to have a lot of bonuses. But in modern economy the capital determines who gets employed, which company makes it. Bankers rule the world and this is why they were the first to get bailed out. This is also why we print and then print some more cash. It is all for a good cause. People do not realize how bankers are important to all of us and we should cherish them as much as possible. We should all hope bankers get bigger bonuses next year and you should as well.

    “print money” – the most overused and useless phrase ever.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. pfft

    oh yeah, inflation last year was around 3% I think? OMG LOL they are printing money$$$!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. Kary L. Krismer

    By pfft @ 14:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:
    By David Losh @ 208:
    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    OWS had union involvement…it;s like you don’t want to know anything about the movement.

    Undoubtedly they share some goals. The difference is, unions have accomplished things.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. Kary L. Krismer

    President Obama is borrowing tax policy from Santorum.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46476720/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/#.T0T5poeWfcE

    His corporate tax policy proposal looks a little like Santorum’s but doesn’t go as far. It even includes a special lower rate for manufacturers.

    What’s crazy is corporate tax reform should have been a priority for democrats and republicans in 2009. Here it is 2012 and we’re just getting around to discussing it. It’s almost as if neither party cares about unemployment.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 218

    How quickly we forget that there have been constant battles concerning Obama himself, rather than any policies. There was no focus from the Republican Party on anything other than Obama. They had to get rid of Obama. OMG, how dare he shoulder the economic issues we had in those days. OMG, he spent money again!, OMG, he wants to take a trip to Asia!. OMG! It was a complete joke, a farce, but he made it through.

    Now on the eve of a reelection he has a 6 point lead over any Republican candidate, when Republicans were polled. He’s winning the Republican Presidential nomination, and this corporate tax rate ought to put him over the top.

    The guy seems to be playing politics pretty good, for a rookie.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17

    I’m going to point out again that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in Spain in 2007. It’s in the clip. Second is that it is a union movement in Europe, always has been a union movement. In Europe people can afford to sit for days, and weeks, because they are on the dole. We don’t have a safety net here in the United States, as much as many want to claim that we do. We have welfare for work, we have no health care, we set crazy people loose out on the street, literally, every day. We give away food stamps readily because it is the corner stone of the farms subsidy program.

    In other words we were late to the Occupy movement.

    Now that we are there the objection is that we have only fringe elements representing the movement in the streets. The homeless, criminals, and disabled are the only ones who can afford to spend months in the streets. I personally support that, because I’m well aware that welfare fraud is a corporate crime, committed by corporations, to benefit corporations.

    However unions are just now starting to catch on that having bodies in the street other than membership can have huge impacts. We’ll see what happens this summer.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. Kary L. Krismer

    By David Losh @ 220:

    I’m going to point out again that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in Spain in 2007.

    Is that Wall Street, Madrid? I’m not finding that on Google Maps. ;-)

    I have no doubt that OWS tries to claim some roots other than its own, just as it tries to claim accomplishments other than its own (e.g. the recent Seattle trucker strike).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. Kary L. Krismer

    By David Losh @ 219:

    <The guy seems to be playing politics pretty good, for a rookie.

    He’s sort of crazy, like a fox.

    On the recent health insurance coverage for contraceptives issue, he made a move that is almost universally viewed as bone-headed, but then the next day comes up with a change he calls a compromise (even though it wasn’t negotiated with anyone). Then he somehow morphs a First Amendment issue into a birth control issue, and gains the upper hand.

    I’m not a big fan of religious organizations, as opposed to religion, and would even tax them. But I find his maneuvering to be incredible in light of recent Supreme Court opinions on religion and other issues.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. Scotsman

    Coming soon to the U.S.- another failed economic policy. Everytime taxes are raised revenues go down. But they keep on trying.

    “the UK did exactly what Obama and the Democrats propose to do here — pass a surtax on high-income earners. The new tax rate of 50%, which took effect at the beginning of the year, was expected to raise a billion pounds in extra revenue each month. So how did that work out? Tax revenues dropped by more than £500 million:”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/22/surtax-on-wealthy-in-uk-results-in-lower-revenue/

    What’s the definition of insanity again? Is insane leadership better than no leadership at all?

    Can you steer a parked car?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 221

    You never looked at the link yet you’re still making comments? I posted it there for you more than a couple of times. You have no clue about the movement, what it is, or what they are doing. You haven’t read any of my comments, so I guess you are just commenting for the sake of making a comment.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. David Losh

    RE: Scotsman @ 23

    Yeah, as fun as it is to look at the Hot Air web site, they are exactly right, the entrepenuers left, thank God, let them go. They are probably over in golly Ireland, yeah, that’s where I would want my money, Ireland, they have a low tax rate.

    Maybe every one forgets how the upper tax rate was 90% in England, and every one had to lower that until they could attract more revenue. It was a European tax game; hmmm, I think Germany won that.

    It makes no difference, these leeches need to be taxed to the full extent of the law where ever they go. If they leave they shouldn’t be allowed back. If the money leaves it should be fair game to any government that can freeze it.

    What if England failed to defend the business interests of the people who were attempting this kind of threat? I’l bet you would hear some squelling about that.

    That post is very much to the heart of the issue. We need to tax the heck out of these guys and get the money they have moving. Every government should be on board with this, and see how these guys like having money stuck in Switzerland.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: David Losh @ 24 – I’m not going to watch a 10 minute Youtube video to see if you proved your point. That’s even worse than just pointing to the homepage of some website. At least in that situation there’s a chance I could find a link and only waste 2 minutes of my time.

    Let’s say instead that you had posted a Youtube link to that foreclosure scam thing you found recently. Would watching 10 minutes of that prove a point you claimed about MERS? Not at all.

    In any case your point is absurd. You think the idea that there’s a problem with the unequal distribution of wealth somehow started in Spain in 2007? That idea goes back decades. In any case, Occupy Wall Street started in this country.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. Kary L. Krismer

    By David Losh @ 25:

    Maybe every one forgets how the upper tax rate was 90% in England . . ..

    It was actually 95%. And to show you how you prove a point, here’s a link. Read the first 3 lines of the song (or six lines if you prefer subtraction to division). ;-)

    http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Taxman%20Lyrics.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. David Losh

    So you do just make comments to make comments. Why? What’s the point?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. doug

    RE: David Losh @ 228

    Because whoever posts most wins!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. doug

    RE: Scotsman @ 23

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/12/tax-rates-and-gdp-growth/

    There doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation, actually.

    Obama’s corporate tax plan is very interesting. It’s the kind of aggressively pro-American-worker budget the GOP really should have come up with on their own. But, since Obama proposed it, it will be demonized somehow. See: Obamacare, invented by Republicans.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 30 – Santorum proposed something similar, but possibly more aggressive. If I recall right, it was 0% for manufacturing activity.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. Kary L. Krismer

    By David Losh @ 228:

    So you do just make comments to make comments. Why? What’s the point?

    I missed this. Two points.

    1. The rate was worse than you said–an incredible rate by today’s thinking.

    2. It was to show you how to prove a point. You don’t prove a point by making a claim and then citing a link that makes people do a ton of work, such as: https://www.google.com/

    Seriously, the points should have been obvious. Are you trying to purposefully be dense?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 231

    Did Santorum’s plan do anything to broaden the tax base to compensate? That might be a really interesting idea, if so. (And if it was for domestic manufacturing only.)

    If Santorum stuck to the economy, he might actually have a chance. He can’t resist being a culture warrior, though.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 33:

    Did Santorum’s plan do anything to broaden the tax base to compensate? That might be a really interesting idea, if so. (And if it was for domestic manufacturing only.)

    I don’t know, although I’m pretty sure it was domestic manufacturing only. Not a fan of Santorum. I just remember him saying that during one of the two debates I watched part of.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 234

    I’m not either… but he’s up against a pretty weak field. A little restraint and he’d win.

    I think with a pro-’insourcing’ tax plan, we could really have a manufacturing renaissance in this country. It’s something the whole country could actually get behind and feel passionately about. A guy can dream, right?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 235 – If I want an incumbent President out of office I usually prefer to have a governor run against them. Senators and ex-Senators don’t tend to get elected.

    But it would be really hard for me to support Santorum just due to his economic policy, given his social policies.

    But hey, he’s not that much worse than President Obama. President Obama is making two separate attacks on the First Amendment, sort of reminiscent of Republicans after the Supreme Court decision on flag burning. Very hard for me to support a candidate who wants to amend the Bill of Rights, and doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. doug

    Explain how he’s attacking the first amendment?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 237 – 1. Attacking Citizen’s United decision, which struck down incumbent protection legislation. 2. Requiring Catholic non-profits to buy health insurance which covers contraception.

    Nancy Pelosi has actually mentioned amending the First Amendment after President Obama gets re-elected. For political reasons though, she just referred to it as amending the Constitution, not amending the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights is under clear attack from Democrats.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. doug

    OH PLEASE, Kary.
    1. Obama is far from the first president to disagree with a Supremes ruling, and you KNOW it. If this were disrespect for the constitution, every politician who campaigned against abortion would be ‘disrespecting the constitution’. That’s a RIDICULOUS argument. It’s made in bad faith. I seriously cannot believe you would trot that out.

    2. The health care law in no way impinges upon someone’s right to practice religion. I’m a Christian and I was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds, yet my tax dollars were spent on it. Whatever! I guess I don’t count! We’re compelled to spend money on things we don’t agree with all the time.

    3. The law does not force people to use birth control. It does not establish a state religion. Therefore, it does not violate the first amendment. You can’t cloak any argument in religiosity and automatically win.

    4. Laws mandating provisions for employees’ health and welfare have been around for ages. Get used to it. You can come up for religious justifications for opposing child labor laws, or worker safety laws, or blood transfusions, or cancer treatments. It doesn’t mean you get to decide for all your employees what they get to practice. SORRY. What a bunch of babies. “Oh, oh, I’m Amish and I pay tax money for infrastructure projects! You’re violating my constitutional rights!” No one else makes that argument. You know why? It’s preposterous!

    5. On a side note, my wife is very conservative, and we’re both Christians. She’s incredibly insulted by the birth control stuff (We’ll be fruitful and multiply when we’re good and ready, thank you very much) and will be voting for Obama, something she seriously didn’t think was in the realm of possibility.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. doug

    From TPM:

    “One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”

    The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

    “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. doug

    Also: Considering amending the constitution is not an attack on the Constitution. It’s a pretty difficult thing to do! That First Amendment that you an I love so much is the First AMENDMENT. The first change to the Constitution of the United States.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 239:

    OH PLEASE, Kary.
    1. Obama is far from the first president to disagree with a Supremes ruling, and you KNOW it.

    How many Presidents have called out the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address? IMHO, they should have all stood up, walked out and boycotted the rest of his addresses going forward.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 39:

    2. The health care law in no way impinges upon someone’s right to practice religion. I’m a Christian and I was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds, yet my tax dollars were spent on it. Whatever! I guess I don’t count! We’re compelled to spend money on things we don’t agree with all the time. .

    It tells a religious organization what to do.

    As to the tax argument, why do you think we don’t tax religious entities? It’s to not force them to pay for things they disagree with. Health insurance is no different.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 39:

    What a bunch of babies. “Oh, oh, I’m Amish and I pay tax money for infrastructure projects! You’re violating my constitutional rights!” No one else makes that argument. You know why? It’s preposterous!

    Yes, that would be preposterous. But we’re not talking about whether an employer who happens to be Catholic can avoid buying such insurance, or whether people who are Amish can avoid paying taxes. We’re talking about forcing religious organizations to do things that they don’t agree with.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 39:

    5. On a side note, my wife is very conservative, and we’re both Christians. She’s incredibly insulted by the birth control stuff (We’ll be fruitful and multiply when we’re good and ready, thank you very much) and will be voting for Obama, something she seriously didn’t think was in the realm of possibility.

    On a side note I hate the Catholic church and am pro-choice. I’m also pro-Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 41:

    Also: Considering amending the constitution is not an attack on the Constitution. It’s a pretty difficult thing to do! That First Amendment that you an I love so much is the First AMENDMENT. The first change to the Constitution of the United States.

    I said attacking the First Amendment, not attacking the Constitution.

    BTW, the opinion of one person about the First Amendment means little. Just look how many legal scholars couldn’t read and thought that the Second Amendment was not an individual right.

    Also, I would note that but for the Bill of Rights the Constitution would likely have never been ratified. The existing constitution was not the first constitution. So in a way, attacking any part of the Bill of Rights is an attack on the Constitution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 242RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 244

    You’re changing the topic. It doesn’t matter whether he did it in the state of the union or not. Presidents disagree with SC rulings all. The. Time. Doing so does not mean you are attacking the constitution.

    Read the 2004 SotU anyway:

    “Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

    Wow. That’s exactly what you just described.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law. That simple. Whether you feel it’s right or not, it’s NOT a violation of the first Amendment. You can’t sacrifice animals in pursuit of your religion.

    Either way, even if you feel it’s a gray area (and I don’t) it hardly amounts to ‘attacking the Bill of Rights’. What overblown hyperbole.

    You know how Obama is violating the Constitution? Indefinite detention without trial. Now there is a clear violation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 247:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 242RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 244

    You’re changing the topic. It doesn’t matter whether he did it in the state of the union or not. Presidents disagree with SC rulings all. The. Time. Doing so does not mean you are attacking the constitution.

    Read the 2004 SotU anyway:

    “Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

    Wow. That’s exactly what you just described.

    I am not changing the topic. I am claiming President Obama is attacking the Bill of Rights. I could go further and note that he’s attacking the Bill of Rights too with the Individual Mandate, which probably violates the 10th Amendment. The man has no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I consider him the most dangerous President when it comes to the Constitution since Roosevelt.

    The quote from the 2004 State of the Union, in contrast, is changing the topic, because constitutional interpretation in general, or with respect to marriage is not an attack on the Bill of Rights. Nor was it an attack on any Supreme Court decision that I recall. Other than that, it’s exactly the same! ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 48:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44 – Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law. That simple. Whether you feel it’s right or not, it’s NOT a violation of the first Amendment. You can’t sacrifice animals in pursuit of your religion.

    You know how Obama is violating the Constitution? Indefinite detention without trial. Now there is a clear violation.

    I would agree with the second point, at least in some instances.

    As to the first point, you can’t be so broad. Clearly they are not protected if having violent love with underage males. What if they passed a law requiring Jewish organizations to serve pork at all of their ceremonies, and require everyone attending to partake?

    To try to claim that it’s a provision in a statute so it’s constitutional is circular at best. The point of judicial review is to determine whether a statute is constitutional. You can’t just take a decision stating a broad principle and say everything is constitutional if enacted into law.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 248:

    Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law.

    BTW, clearly distinguishable. It’s dealing with whether a religion can override a statutory prohibition when it comes to individual acts. So can a member of a religion use otherwise illegal drugs.

    To be on point with that decision you would have to have a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, and a religion which required or encouraged them to be used. Under the Smith decision, the use of the contraceptives would be illegal, but clearly that is a completely different fact pattern.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 249

    How is it any different than attacking Roe v Wade? It is not. Whether he does it during a SotU, or in a press conference is irrelevant, it is changing the topic. Is attacking Roe v Wade, saying it was wrong, attacking the Bill of Rights? If so, it’s just as ‘dangerous’ as Obama attacking CU, which is not at all.

    The only person who is ‘dangerous’ in this regard was Gingrich, who said he’d use executive power to just override judicial authority.

    News flash Kary: laws pass ALL THE TIME that are unconstitutional. sometimes it is blatant, sometimes not. This is the ENTIRE point of having a judicial body. If the Constitution were completely clear and in no need of interpretation, the founding fathers would not have established a Supreme Court, and not established a clear (but difficult) way to amend the constitution.

    Bush’s quote is regarding the establishment of a constitutional amendment in reaction to judicial decisions that he disagreed with. Exactly what you were so worried about. Whether is was a Supremes decision or not is irrelevant. The President can’t override a state judge any more than he can override a Supreme Court decision. But he’s certainly free to express his displeasure. And he’s free to pursue a constitutional amendment. I’m 110% for the right of gays to marry, but I don’t think that Bush was trying to topple the Republic.

    Nor should you get upset that Obama got disgruntled about a judicial decision (that reversed previous practice that was accepted as law) on the 2nd amendment. It’s his right. It’s his right to vocally do it too! Under the same 2nd amendment! If he decided he could just overrule it, now that would be trouble. But he hasn’t. In fact, he’s got his very own super PAC. Lighten up. Your freedom is not being taken away because Obama got indecorously grumpy.

    In short: you either have a basic misconception of the way this government works, or you’re just all worked up and you’re stubbornly digging in now.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 51

    Smoking peyote is illegal, just like refusing to provide birth control coverage is illegal under the ACA. It is a broadly defined law not intended to pick on Catholics. It in no way prohibits them from worshiping freely. Finding a law immoral is not grounds to disobey it.

    No one is compelling Catholics to use birth control, so the kosher analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 252:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 249 – How is it any different than attacking Roe v Wade? It is not.

    Roe v. Wade is not a decision based on the Bill of Rights.

    You seem to assume I have a problem with amending the Constitution. I don’t. Amendments are expressly provided for, and a most of the Amendments have been good. The exception would be Prohibition, but there might be others.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 53:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 51

    Smoking peyote is illegal, just like refusing to provide birth control coverage is illegal under the ACA.

    No one is compelling Catholics to use birth control, so the kosher analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

    First, there was no kosher analogy in that post. I did address in another post how if you assume a law prohibiting contraception (which requires ignoring Roe v. wade), religious beliefs promoting their use wouldn’t stand up to that law (again, which ignores Roe v. Wade).

    As to the first sentence, not parallel at all. In the first case (peyote) you’re prohibiting someone from doing something. In the second case (contraceptives) you’re requiring them to do something (provide coverage, not take contraceptives). Other than paying taxes, and serve in war, the federal government can’t typically force people to do things.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. doug

    Ok, let’s split it into two issues, because I do think I get your objection to the birth control thing, but it’s combining two distinct issues.

    Issue 1: Is the ACA mandate constitutional? Maybe! Compelling individuals and organizations to buy health care may or may not be Constitutional. It’ll probably make it’s way to the Supreme Court.

    It’s definitely up for debate, and I understand arguments on both sides. Either way, signing it doesn’t make Obama dangerous, or unique. Again, laws are declared unconstitutional with some regularity, sometimes after decades of being on the books. Interpretations change.

    Issue 2: Should the Catholic Church be immune from provisions of the ACA? And here, I think it’s a clear ‘no’. If the ACA is the law of the land, then everyone must obey it. Religious exemptions can be written in (as they often are in laws) but that doesn’t mean the church gets to flout the law.

    If the law is unconstitutional, it’s not because of birth control, or any religious issues. If it’s unconstitutional, it’s because of the mandate, and it will be decided as such.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 256 – I would agree with your analysis of the Individual mandate. I would only note though that if the individual mandate is constitutional, that would be a huge expansion of federal power.

    On that topic there are two issues. Is the individual mandate a good idea and is it constitutional. Some think it’s a good idea because it deals with the freerider issue, but I think it’s a bad idea because I think it will be highly inflationary. The Supreme Court will not strike it down because they think it’s bad policy. The very well might strike it down as not being within the government’s power. Personally I think that is somewhat likely given some of their other decisions the past ten years or so, but it will probably be a 5-4 decision either way.

    On the other I continue to disagree. The court can find the rule on contraceptives constitutional as applied to everyone but religious organizations. The case you cited earlier clearly doesn’t address it. If you have another to look at, let me know. But it would need to be something requiring a religious organization to do something that violated their principles. So just having to pay minimum wage, for example, wouldn’t cut it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. Kary L. Krismer

    Not a Supreme Court decision, and it’s older, but you might want to look at this case dealing with minimum wage law:

    http://openjurist.org/899/f2d/1389/dole-v-shenandoah-baptist-church-c-d-b-m-s-f-p-t-i-t-t-r-l-c-t-m-dole

    Paragraph 45.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. doug

    I think the law itself is a good idea, but don’t necessarily think it’s constitutional. It could certainly lead to bad things.

    Do you get upset about warrant-less searches and wire taps, the Patriot Act, private prisons and private military groups? That’s what gets ME scared. Bad stuff is happening with those issues now, not in the future. And since we’re all so scared, it just gets swept under the rug. The SC won’t even hear arguments in some cases.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 259 -Sticking to Bill of Rights issues:

    Searches, wiretaps depend on the circumstances. Technology makes that very difficult. For example, I didn’t have a problem with putting a GPS device on a car, because it tracks the movement in public, and that could be done by having cops follow, using a helicopter, etc. The court didn’t agree, however, and possibly because apparently surveillance can become so intrusive to be unconstitutional (not sure).

    On the other hand, using infrared detectors to look inside houses for drugs, clearly bad IMHO.

    BTW, historically the court hasn’t been that strong in protecting against search and seizure. Our Washington State Supreme Court has been much more restrictive, and I would agree more with what they do.

    As to locking people up, I’ve already indicated a problem with that in some situations.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. doug

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-09/news/0512090161_1_mitt-romney-abandoned-plans-private-hospitals-public-health-commissioner

    Is this that different?

    Again, I would say this kind of thing is not at all unprecedented. We seem to be splitting some pretty fine hairs here, and once we’re drawing distinctions this fine, it’s really hard to say that Obama doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    I personally think that CU is contrary to original intent. If money is speech, how is bribery or blackmail illegal? It’s all just speech. But I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. David Losh

    RE: doug @ 261

    You are fighting a good fight, that will get you nowhere. You’ve made excellent points, but you will find the conversation circular, on many small points.

    In my opinion you are correct, and have made an excellent presentation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 261:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-09/news/0512090161_1_mitt-romney-abandoned-plans-private-hospitals-public-health-commissioner

    Is this that different?

    I don’t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then you’d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.

    Similarly, Romneycare might be constitutional under their constitution. That in fact is more likely. That still wouldn’t mean it was a good idea, and judging by their medical costs there it wasn’t. But at least that’s a distinction Romney could raise.

    It’s like what I was addressing on the search and seizure issue, where Washington decisions on the restrictions are more restrictive on police powers. In that case it’s not based differences in the language of the two constitutions, where in the case of Romneycare or the issue in your article, it very well might be.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 261:

    I personally think that CU is contrary to original intent. If money is speech, how is bribery or blackmail illegal? It’s all just speech. But I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    It’s not that money is speech. What the money pays for is speech. There’s a message there, and the law which was struck down prevented certain groups from speaking the weeks prior to an election. I was shocked when the Supreme Court found that constitutional several years before CU.

    What I also find amazing is how willing the press is to go along with this attacks on the First Amendment. They describe the CU decision as applying to corporations, because people don’t like corporations. In discussing the more recent issue, they address it as being about contraception rather than religious rights, even though all it’s about is religious rights. No one is talking about taking away anyone’s contraception. Back during Clinton they acted as if claiming the Second Amendment was an individual right was an absurd idea. And during Bush, on your issue, they hardly covered the Patriot Act and the people locked up.

    The press is going to regret being so in bed with the politicians when the politicians turn their sights on the press. But judging by what passes as news these days, I think it will be a long time before the politicians decide that they even care what the press has to say.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. David Losh

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 264

    What I heard Doug to say is that the Citizen’s United decision was contrary to the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

    Many people consider the Bill of Rights to be Individual rights, or the Rights of the People.

    What the decision does is further extend the rights of organizations, like the Nazi Party, Republican Party, Democrats, Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, Jewish Defense League, Anti Defamation League, the Communist Party, Socialist Party, or any other organization that can raise money.

    More to my point is that I consider Citizens United to be a hate group.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. doug

    “I don’t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then you’d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.”

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. State laws have to obey the U.S. Constitution for Goodness sake.

    And re: Citizens United, the point I was trying to raise was not that it’s a bad decision, but that I wouldn’t describe the court as disrespecting Constitutional rights, as you did with Obama. When I point out all the times VERY similar things have happened, you draw finer and finer distinctions (Well, it was at the State of the Union! Well, that was the 9th Amendment not the 1st! I said Bill of Rights, not Constitution!)

    So yes, no other president of the United States wrote the ACA, and no other President disagreed with THAT specific decision at a State of the Union, because it hadn’t been written yet. I cannot argue otherwise. Why should I have to?

    When you make your argument this specific, it loses all meaning, and you can’t draw the conclusion that Obama has no respect for the Constitution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 266:

    “I donâ��t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then youâ��d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.”

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. State laws have to obey the U.S. Constitution for Goodness sake..

    Only in certain instances, and only where there’s a conflict with federal law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    If the First Amendment says that the Federal Government shall not enact a law with restricts the freedom of religion, then that wouldn’t stop the states from enacting such a laws. You would need to have some other amendment to the constitution loop back and have the First Amendment apply to the states. That would possibly be the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Off the top of my head I’m not sure which parts have been held to apply to the states. You can read about it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

    Applied to Obamacare (the big issue, not the contraceptive issue) it’s an entirely different argument. The question isn’t whether the Constitution prohibits Obamacare, but whether the Constitution gives the federal government the power because the federal government has limited powers. The argument against Obamacare is that the federal government doesn’t have the power to force people to buy things. If the state constitution has such powers in Massachusetts, it’s entirely possible that Obamacare would be unconstitutional but Romneycare constitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 66:

    And re: Citizens United, the point I was trying to raise was not that it’s a bad decision, but that I wouldn’t describe the court as disrespecting Constitutional rights, as you did with Obama. When I point out all the times VERY similar things have happened, you draw finer and finer distinctions (Well, it was at the State of the Union! Well, that was the 9th Amendment not the 1st! I said Bill of Rights, not Constitution!)

    Of course CU is not disrepecting Constitutional rights. It’s giving greater constitutional rights. The case which disrespected the Bill of Rights was the decision a few years earlier which was overruled by CU. That earlier decision said people could not get together jointly and put a message on TV saying that they did not like an incumbent politician. Very clear violation of the freedom of speech. I don’t know how it could be any clearer, and I don’t understand how that earlier decision could have reached the decision it did.

    And again, you’ve yet to give an example of a President so disrespecting the First Amendment. That may be cutting hairs, but complaining about Roe v. Wade is not attacking the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights, because Roe v. Wade is not based on either. For the record though, I don’t like those references in a State of the Union address either. The idea that judges are restricted in interpreting the Constitution is absurd. For example, there’s no way you could have strict construction and rule on using GPS devices being attached to cars.

    BTW, the argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is also a Bill of Rights issue–the Tenth Amendment. If you throw that in, then President Obama is attacking the Bill of Rights on three fronts. Personally, I wouldn’t go that far because I don’t think you need to get to the 10th to rule Obamacare unconstitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. doug

    States have to obey the 1st Amendment. This is settled law. It’s clearly stated in the very link you copied above.

    And you’re mixing your arguments again. I already granted you that the ACA may not be able to compel people to buy things. But if it does, then you can’t refuse coverage on religious grounds.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. Kary L. Krismer

    Look at the law struck down by CU and tell me it doesn’t violate the Freedom of Speech:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/441b

    Subpart (a) provides:

    It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.

    Clearly it’s incumbent protection legislation. And remember, the issue which gave rise to the CU decision was a documentary on Hillary. Now you can argue that the documentary wasn’t somehow factual, but neither are Michael Moore documentaries. That doesn’t mean Congress can pass laws preventing those documentaries from being seen.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. doug

    Roe v Wade = 9th Amendment = Bill of Rights.

    And again, I believe I’ve shown that this is not an attack on 1st amendment rights at all. I REALLY don’t think it is. The existence of contraception does not establish a state religion, or forbid the practice of a religion, much like war being waged with my tax dollars does not forbid my practice of religion. You can’t exempt yourself from Federal Law on moral grounds.

    If you think the federal government has never imposed its will on a religion, read up on Mormonism and polygamy.

    The law doesn’t apply to churches. Churches don’t have to hire women priests either. But once you go to businesses where the primary mode of operation is not the practice of religion: hospitals, schools, what have you, the Catholic Church has to obey federal law! Period! Otherwise, you’d probably have every corporation setting itself up as a religious entity to get out of federal regs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    It doesn’t mean that Obama can’t speak out against it if he thinks it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean that presidents speaking against SC decisions is unprecedented.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 271:

    Roe v Wade = 9th Amendment = Bill of Rights.

    I don’t think so. From the Opinion:

    This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

    The lower court based it on the Ninth but the Supreme Court based it on the 14th.

    See also the discussion here of the 9th vs. 14th:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 71:The existence of contraception does not establish a state religion, or forbid the practice of a religion, much like war being waged with my tax dollars does not forbid my practice of religion..

    This isn’t about the “existence of contraception.” That’s how the press has tried to frame the issue to claim it is not a First Amendment issue. It’s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 72:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    It doesn’t mean that Obama can’t speak out against it if he thinks it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean that presidents speaking against SC decisions is unprecedented.

    It would be rather hypocritical for me to claim that he couldn’t do that. As a President he has First Amendment rights too.

    That doesn’t mean that in doing so, he isn’t attacking the First Amendment, which was my point. I don’t know why you think I should exclude a particular event of his attacking the First Amendment as being evidence that he’s attacking the First Amendment. That’s the point I’m trying to prove!

    As to the speech, that other Presidents have complained about then long standing decisions or “liberal judges” in the State of the Union address doesn’t mean that President Obama being critical of the Court in the very next State of the Union address isn’t something the Court should take sitting down. As I said, they should have walked out on him, and boycotted the rest of his speeches. That would be their right under the First Amendment too.

    Finally, on the topic of being hypocritical, look how much money President Obama spent in 2008 getting elected. He’s not against spending money to sway elections. He just wants to limit that power to politicians.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. doug

    Because Obama was rude, he is a danger to the country?

    ” It’s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.”

    There is absolutely no difference, in my mind, between forcing Catholic hospitals or bookstores to comply with this law than forcing non-discrimination of employees and customers, throwing polygamists in jail, or upholding the right to fire someone for smoking marijuana or peyote for religious purposes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 276:

    Because Obama was rude, he is a danger to the country?

    No, it’s because he is attacking the First Amendment. I don’t care about his manners, I care about his positions.

    BTW, I voted for Clinton in 1992, but after learning that he would repeatedly attack the Second Amendment I didn’t vote for him in 1996, nor did I vote for his VP in 2000, nor would I have voted for his wife in 2008 if that had happened. I take attacking the Bill of Rights very seriously.

    ” Itâ��s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.”

    There is absolutely no difference, in my mind, between forcing Catholic hospitals or bookstores to comply with this law than forcing non-discrimination of employees and customers, throwing polygamists in jail, or upholding the right to fire someone for smoking marijuana or peyote for religious purposes.

    RE: doug @ 276

    As explained in the Court of Appeals decision, discrimination of employees is not a core value of a religion (at least the one in the case, which I believe was Catholic). And as I explained above on peyote, there’s a difference between forcing a religious organization to do something, and preventing an individual from doing something. Organization/individual. Force to act/prevent from acting. Not even close to being on point.

    As to the polygamy issue, I would question whether that is the right decision, but I would note that is also preventing an individual from doing something, and so therefore clearly not the same thing as this health insurance issue.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. Kary L. Krismer

    On one of your topics, imprisonment without trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNKS1NDCIE.DTL

    Of course, President Obama only signed the law because “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” As if it has a sunset provision, that only made it applicable while he was in office.

    BTW, that’s probably a Fifth Amendment violation. I would assume “liberty” would include not being imprisoned.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. doug

    It’s pretty clear that you hold the right of companies and organizations to be far more important than the rights of individuals. That’s just mind-blowing to me.

    It shouldn’t matter whether it’s a core religious belief or not. These entities are acting in the public sphere and have to comply with federal laws regulations. My company is forced to comply with innumerable federal regulations, and can’t get out of it with some broadly-defined Bill of Rights argument. Religious organizations operating in the public sphere get a lot of leeway, but that is at the government’s discretion. Else all small business owners could define themselves as religious organizations, disobey the laws, and the courts would spend all their time litigating who has genuinely held beliefs and who doesn’t, exactly the kind of thing that the 1st Amendment is supposed to prevent!

    “Your coal company isn’t getting permits / following pollution laws!”
    “Well God said man is to have dominion over the earth, and you’re violating my God-given authority to exert my dominion!”

    Still not seeing why the 9th Amendment, and attacks on Roe V Wade isn’t important in your eyes, if interpretations of the Bill of Rights are so sacrosanct in your eyes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78

    Yes, that is truly awful. I take such issues very seriously, and I would most likely vote for any Republican who was against such laws. There aren’t any, aside from Paul.

    It’s clear that there are cases to be made for and against the ACA. Isn’t this the very reason for a Supreme Court? Shouldn’t you withhold your judgment until it’s decided?

    Just like you think it’s obvious that CU is constitutional, it’s obvious to others that it’s not. These things are complicated. Accusing Obama for not respecting the Constitution and its Amendments is insulting. He doesn’t respect your subjective interpretation of the Constitution. That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. doug
  82. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 279:

    It’s pretty clear that you hold the right of companies and organizations to be far more important than the rights of individuals. That’s just mind-blowing to me.

    I didn’t say they were more important. I said it was a way of distinguishing the case law.

    It shouldn’t matter whether it’s a core religious belief or not.

    I would disagree.

    Still not seeing why the 9th Amendment, and attacks on Roe V Wade isn’t important in your eyes, if interpretations of the Bill of Rights are so sacrosanct in your eyes.

    Because as I explained, it’s not a Ninth Amendment case. It’s a 14th Amendment case.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 80:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78 – It’s clear that there are cases to be made for and against the ACA. Isn’t this the very reason for a Supreme Court? Shouldn’t you withhold your judgment until it’s decided?

    There are two separate issues there. Whether the individual mandate is constitutional and whether the contraception mandate is constitutional. Only the former involves the First Amendment. But I don’t understand why I should withhold judgment until there’s a court ruling? There are several conflicting rulings in lower courts on the individual mandate issue. The issue is well framed.

    Just like you think it’s obvious that CU is constitutional, it’s obvious to others that it’s not. These things are complicated. Accusing Obama for not respecting the Constitution and its Amendments is insulting. He doesn’t respect your subjective interpretation of the Constitution. That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    He was critical of a decision which struck down a statute which arguably would have prevented a documentary about a politician from being shown. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you can just say that is subjective and leave it at that. If that is not a clear violation of the First Amendment, I don’t know what is. My concern though is over further erosion of the rights in the Bill of Rights. That’s why I prefer the decisions of the Washington Supreme Court over the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to search and seizure issues. And remember, the US Supreme Court once held it was okay to lock up Japanese and others during WWII. It’s not like they have an unblemished record.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 81:

    Also, too:

    http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf

    Again I would point out that you could have found the same type of thing on the Second Amendment issue. People have different opinions on legal issues, and no one is necessarily right until the Supreme Court rules (and possibly even then in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission).

    The problem comes about when people let their political views color their decisions on constitutional issues. It was a horrible result allowing Nazis to protest, but that decision really helped make the First Amendment stronger. So with healthcare, your analysis of whether or not it’s constitutional should not be colored by whether or not you think more health insurance should exist. Or to decide a freedom of religion issue based on what you think of contraception. The analysis should not be result driven.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 80:

    That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    BTW, no offense taken. I’ve appreciated this civil debate. I hope I haven’t said anything to offend you, and if I did, I’m sorry.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 283 – I missed the edit window by a second. Only the insurance coverage issue involves the FA. I wrote former when I meant latter.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 284

    I certainly agree with that. I honestly don’t know enough about Constitutional law to know if the individual mandate is proper. If I’d had my druthers we’d have single-payer.

    I’ll say while I disagree with the Catholic Church on the issue, I also strongly believe that the law should apply to them. If you think the bill of rights are eroding, worker protection is eroding far faster.

    I truly believe that religious entities, when employing people for reasons other than running a place of worship, should act in full faith and accordance with federal and state law. Their freedom to practice their religion is not harmed by their obligation to their workers.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. doug

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 85

    No, you haven’t offended me, and I hope I’ve caused no offense as well :-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: doug @ 287 – I’m not sure if you’d call it single payer, but I’d open up something like the VA system, alongside what we have now. Back in college at the UW they had “Hall Health” which students could go to for free. If students had insurance (or money) they could also go to a regular doctor. On topic, if I recall correctly, women could even get diaphragms fitted, and IUDs at Hall Health.

    As to the religious organization acting as a non-core area employer being required to obtain certain health coverage, I would agree that wouldn’t be the worst erosion of the Bill of Rights. And I’ll agree that when it comes to contraceptive coverage, that is really splitting hairs, but that’s the way I would split the hair.

    The bigger issue to me is the Free Speech issue, and when i hear Democrats are considering amending the First Amendment to limit free speech (and protect future politicians), I react to that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. Kary L. Krismer

    The conservatives are playing right into President Obama’s hand. The Senate tries to pass something so broad that it clearly would be unreasonable, and then Russ Limbaugh goes off an an absurd rage about paying for others’ birth control so that they can have violent love, as if that’s really a financial hardship for him. Somehow, I don’t recall him complaining about insurance companies covering Viagra.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. Blurtman

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 290 – So let’s try this thought experiment. You eat at McDonalds a lot, and your doc has prescribed statins to lower your cholesterol. Your employer believes that eating cows is a sin, and refuses to cover your statin prescription on religious grounds, believing that it would enable you to continue to consume quarter pounders.

    Your husband beats you because he believes you wear provocative clothing. You seek psychiatric treatment for your depression, but your employer’s religious beliefs cause you to be regarded as a shameless whore, who should be stoned to death, and your employer refuses to cover your psychiatric treatment on religious grounds.

    Of course. nobody would give a crap about the validity of these religious beliefs, because they are false religions. Christianity made this country great, and the rule of the gun, by God!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Blurtman @ 91 – You’re explaining why the proposed Senate bill was too broad. Amazing they got 49 Senators to vote for that. Strike that. It’s not amazing given the fact that we’re dealing with Senators who are idiots.

    BTW, Rush Limbaugh is continuing to make this even worse. Now he’s expanding this from contraception into pre-marital violent love. He needs to just STFU, but saying stupid things is how he makes money to pay for his own vices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. Kary L. Krismer

    The Senate Amendment is apparently called the Blunt Amendment. Jon Stewart claims that’s because you’d have to be really F’n high to think the thing had a chance of passing! ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  94. Kary L. Krismer

    At least Rush is getting hit in the pocketbook for his asinine, ignorant comments. He’s lost seven advertisers!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46620985/ns/business-us_business/#.T1PrHoeWfcE

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. Haybaler

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 231

    I watched Santorum make a speech in which he stated that his plan would have higher taxes on Corporate profits because the corporations should pay for the privilege and benefits of existing in our country BUT in the next breath he stated that he would entice manufacturing to come back to this country by reducing tax rates to 0 when companies bring their jobs back to the US.

    I remember thinking that when that idea gains traction we’ll see a bidding war develop between candidates….the next candidate will up the ante to guarantee a profit, like the energy subsidies. ” I’ll give em 2%”…” I’ll give em 5%”…”I’m the jobs candidate, we’ll give em 10%”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. doug

    RE: Haybaler @ 295

    Yeah, I’ve always found the idea of a ‘tax holiday’ to repatriate wealth kind of repugnant.

    “Hey, here’s your reward for abusing the law and dodging taxes! You were so clever!”

    Rather, the U.S. can and should enact laws that prevent the tax havens from being abused int he first place. If you have billions in the Caymen Islands, you better have a proportional number of employees, production, and administration there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. Kary L. Krismer

    By doug @ 296:

    RE: Haybaler @ 295

    Yeah, I’ve always found the idea of a ‘tax holiday’ to repatriate wealth kind of repugnant.

    “Hey, here’s your reward for abusing the law and dodging taxes! You were so clever!”.

    Not sure which program you’re referring to. If the “dodge” was something perfectly legal, I wouldn’t have a problem at all with a policy which reversed the trend of prior stupid government policy.

    If they were doing something illegal, however, at most I’d only support the penalties being waived if they voluntarily show up and pay the tax owing, with interest.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. Scotsman
  99. whatsmyname

    The Cato Institute gets a taste of the prescription they thought was good for the rest of us. They don’t like it much.

    http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/08/the-koch-brothers-the-cato-institute-and-why-nations-fail/?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. pfft

    By Scotsman @ 298:

    Inflation lurks ahead, if we survive:

    http://azizonomics.com/2012/03/09/sterilised-qe-analysis/

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=203238

    the Fed can just raise rates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

These comments are paged! This is page 3. Navigate the pages here:
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply

Do you want a nifty avatar picture next to your name, instead of a photograph of Tim's dog? Just sign up with Gravatar, and make sure to use the same email address in the form below. It's that easy!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

You have 500 comments remaining on this post.

Archives

Find us on Google+