A Better ‘Pledge’: Congress Shall Make No Law
by Wayne CrewsWhen I think of a “Pledge” I’m reminded of my fraternity days and being hazed and lightly humiliated.
House Republicans are offering their “Pledge to America” on Thursday morning, the 23rd of September. The country has been hazed enough by politicians; so a pledge to back off from some of them can be welcome.
I’m happy to see Republicans offer a “Plede to America”; I even confer a “Least Objectionable Legislator” Award occasionally when I notice a nod toward limiting government in some usually tentative, and not very bold, fashion–regardless of party. But for the time being, it’s refreshing to see politicians bring something to the table besides an appetite for power.
We need to carefully examine this Pledge program, to look not only at what it challenges, but at what it protects (are term limits in there? does it seriously question entitlements? does it root out regulation?). Every program—every program–I say it a third time; every program, must be challenged; it’s not clear that’s where this document really goes, but let’s look and see, and encourage. It’s not enough to cut “entitlements” back to 2008 levels as drafts indicate; today’s situation is too serious to warrant accepting a two-year-old status quo. That’s worrisome, but the jury’s out.
Instead, fundamental questions must be asked about everything the federal government is doing in 2010; The Pledge needs to go further and ask about every program, “how is this ‘necessary and proper’ to carry out an enumerated power?”, as I’ve heard it (refreshingly) put. Indeed, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Fred Smith (my boss) often jokes, “The Constitution isn’t perfect, but it’s better than what we have now.” The doctrine of separation of powers was supposed to have protected us, but it too often means is there is no specific “tyrant” you can put your finger on.
We certainly do know the original intent of framers; the develeopment of the Constitution was a battle between those favoring a central power to tax, and those favoring a looser confederation of states or even mere amendment of the Articles; it was a battle between the doctrines of discretionary powers and the doctrine of strict construction. There is not a mystery about intent; some favored control, others favored liberty; and it’s true that in many respects, to a large degree, discretionary powers won in those two decades after the revolution; not necessarily a good thing in this small-”l” libertarian’s view. We are reaping the fruits of discretinary powers now. But the important question is what do we want; what do we elect to submit to for our posterity. There will always be an “America”; the question is merely whether policymakers are going to keep it here or not. But liberty will thrive.
We may need to think well beyond this political pledge; What kind of society is sustainable over centuries? How about over thousands of years? Whatever the requirements, we have to make sure that America is the kind that can survive. Even with creeping government growth and paternalism, a handful of centuries is enough to wipe out precious freedoms if government is not restrained. So we want to see packages like this pledge, but also serious, fundamental extensions of it that ask questions not driven merely by responses to the antics of an opposing party.
Those extensions, one way or another, are going to require a “prospective principle,” an “opt-out” when it comes to force-fed policy: our descendants must wall off the future — they must protect tomorrow’s American citizens from the opportunistic, transitory politicans of any given era, such as the ones that just further collectivized health care, the financial sector, and seek to further collectivize of energy and frontier areas like telecommunications.
Or another way of looking at it is to recognize how government exploits crisis to expand it’s power, and how we ultimately aquiesce; but there can’t be a health crisis for somebody who’s not even born yet; there can’t be an insurance crisis for a house that’s not built yet; there can’t be an energy crisis if no one has stopped you from building a power plant, or from drilling to provide you with fuel; there can’t be an environmental crisis if you and other free citizens own the land and airsheds and the polluter pays; there can’t be a future Social Security crisis if no newborn is ever enrolled in that wretched program again. And so on.
Policy forgets that we aren’t immortal; most people aren’t born yet, and needn’t draw their first breath in a nanny/political state. I’m glad to see this Pledge to America and look forward to absorbing details and participating in where debate carries us. But we do have to wall off the future from the policy fevers of today; that’s vital.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
123 Comments
They wouldn't have to make a pledge if they were doing the job correctly to begin with
I posted this earlier, but it might be germane to your article so forgive the retread…
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA:
We, the undersigned, do hereby pledge and affirm under penalty of perjury, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. In recognition of our obligations to the People of the United States of America, we further covenant to enact the following measures:
Article I: Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, we shall renew the Constitutional Convention within 60 days of the date the 112th Congress is seated and call for a vote by the legislatures of the several states as to the following matters:
Resolution 1. Socialism is hereby illegal and the practice or proselytizing of socialism shall be illegal in the United States of America.
Resolution 2. The provision of education, health care, retirement living insurance, employment insurance, welfare insurance, disability insurance, housing and related programs and services by any unit of government within the United States, the several states and any territories thereof shall not be constituted under any conditions – as these powers rest solely with the people and the conduct of private commerce and intellectual intercourse and personal freedom are hereby denied by the intrusion of the government into these programs, unless and only, if said programs provided by a unit of government shall be in direct competition with said private-sector enterprises without any special rights, privileges or ability to encumber private sector competition by means of compelling citizens to make payments or other economic contributions of any kind to support said programs and program services offered by any unit of government.
Resolution 3. No unit of government of the United States may collect or levy a tax of any kind, the purpose of which is to finance the cost of government or the provision of any service beyond an excise tax. All units of government are specifically enjoined from levying income taxes of any kind, property taxes of any kind, value added taxes of any kind or any other kind of levy, encumbrance or other contrivance that compels a citizen, commercial enterprise or charitable organization to forfeit an economic right – current or future – in favor of said unit of government.
Resolution 4. No business may engage in the practice of fractional-reserve banking.
Resolution 5. The Federal Reserve Action of 1913 is hereby repealed and the practice of creating currency of the United States of America is hereby solely and completely restricted to using the equity-expansion method of currency inflation. Fiat currency is specifically deemed to be unconstitutional and the value of the currency of the United States may not be affixed using the so-called "gold standard" or any other precious metal or commodity of limited supply or scarcity of any kind.
Resolution 6. No unit of government in the United States, the several states or the territories of the United States may engage in the practice of lending or the provision of credit.
Resolution 7. The Bank of the United States is hereby authorized and specifically incorporated with the requirement of printing the currency of the United States only in accordance with the equity-expansion method where said new currency is exchanged for a specific class of equity securities defined in the Banking Act of 2011 and that said Bank of the United States shall not offer credit of any other kind.
We, the 112th Congress of the United States of America and the legislatures of the several states ratify and affirm these Constitutional Amendments on the ___ day of ______, 2011.
This "Pledge"?
A pledge, is weaker than a contract.
Quite frankly, this is much ado about nothing.
The GOP didn't seal the deal, and haven't sold me. If they were doing the jobs they were duly elected to do, they wouldn't need some slick bait and switch. If they had written something like THIS into it http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/rus... as law, they might have gotten my attention.
This is nothing but a touchey-feely photo op, intended to give skeptics the warm and fuzzies.
"Congress Shall make No Law"
AMEN! That would be SUCH an improvement!
'Nuff said!
Amen Pardner
We the People would be happy to see a halt to any further expanding government, as a start…..
Then dismantle the bureaucracy brick by brick…
Any Congress critter from either party, who gets in the way of this process,
had better watch out for falling debris……
Eyewash. The GOP establishment's weak-ass attempt to put a Tea Party-friendly face on business as usual.
Well, I think, "We The People" simply need to pledge not to vote for anyone who isn't committed to smaller and less intrusive government, and to vote out anyone who doesn't have a voting record reflecting that.
Who cares what politicians pledge, anyway?
Pledges are like New Years resolutions. They look good on paper, but what generally happens the day after? Nothing. And without control of the house and senate, the best laid plans of mice and men are for naught.
Come on now, cynicism aside we have arrived at a place in history where there is a real attempt at stoping the "locomotive" barreling down the tracks. The turmoil we find ourselves in is not much different then it was in 1776 or all the way into the 60s.
The Republicans betrayed their honor and the American citizen and as a result lost power.
Now the Republican Party is going to get fresh voices who need this kind of "Pledge" as weak as it is right now.
It is a start and will you critiques the man who says he is going to quite smoking by saying to him it will never work?
YOU CANT DO IT
Eventually it will provide for Term limits, eventually it will provide "Congress will make no law"
The constitution was adopted in 1787. The first and second amendments were proposed 2 years later and were not enacted for another 2 years after that.
This latest pledge is a start and it has to work or say good bye to our American way of life.
LOL! Gotta admire the Russians some times.
DM …err CE
Making laws is not the problem, 'cause that's what they do.
But the types of laws and regulations, ones that restrict liberty and freedom are the problematic ones…
why not add a bit to that, and say we shall eliminate laws, not all of them, but the dumb ones.
There are some good things and some scary things.
They still use terms like "We will allow…" and essentialy accept the feel good stuff in Obamacare. There is no mention of repealing the Fed or dissolving Education or Energy…. Not sure it they get what we want.
And to the poster with his own Contract, do you not see how you still accept the centralized power of the federal govt?
"The provision of education, health care, retirement living insurance, employment insurance, welfare insurance, disability insurance, housing and related programs and services by any unit of government within the United States, the several states and any territories thereof shall not be constituted under any conditions…"
By saying "any unit of govt" you are missing the point of the 10th Amendment. If a State wants to issue unemployment insurance, it is their right to do so. If a State chooses to be socialist, it is their right to do so and it is not the Federal govt's job to say yes or no to it.
What do we get to do when one of these jerks breaks one of their 'pledges'?
My daughter pledges all the time to start cleaning her room. You know what I tell her?
I can save the Republicans a WHOLE lot of problems, and help save the Planet also (LMAO, something for everyone)… Their pledge should read:
1. Follow the course that the Constitution laid out, and subsequent Amendments
2. Repeal 17th Amendment
3. Get rid of the Dept of Energy, HHS, Education, DHS, and HUD.
4. Flat Tax of 15%
5. Get Unions out of Government
6. Stop the flow of Capital from America to the third world, Disavow ties with U.N., IMF, World Bank, and the G8. Stop or Limit foreign aid.
7. Get out of the Mid-East, but pursue Jihadist ruthlessly.
I posted this last nite in response this "comment"….
RainMan
Of all your thoughtful resolutions, #5, is the least likely to happen…
Although, it would the most important in the "real world",
but as long as we-all accept the fiat dollars, they are perceived to have value…so far…
But as the private sector becomes decimated, that "perceived value" will rapidly diminish…
When I read that title Cowboy I immediately thought of you lol.
A pledge will do what exactly? They don't even say the Pledge of Allegiance for pete sakes.
I support it, but we have to make sure they do these things.
We have a Constitution that no one seems to abide by, laws that the criminals don't care about otherwise they wouldn't be criminals. I think the main ones that have been screwed the most is We The People.
Our elected officials need to fully understand that …even in the initials USA, – US is there, and if you take us out, you have nothing but the first letter of ASS.
I wonder sometimes if one of our founders thought:
""Congress shall make no law." – Hey fell'as should we quit now or just screw with 'em a bit more?"
How about –
° No bill shall be of more words than the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
This "Pledge"?
About the only use for Pledge, is polishing the furniture.
Me neither — Suave for the alarmed … with a bit of pablum.
We shall not be deterred by pledges for our quest of restoring Constitutional Government.
It's important to remember history … The 1994 election was about repealing the AW Ban, which essentially banned militia weapons, as now the Supreme Court has done. Newt's Contract With America was an after thought, a way for the ruling class to take control of the election results, and quite the people, while they went back to their old ways.
BJ Clinton said as much when he in a speech after the election said the AW ban had cost him 56 House seats.
The problem was we went back to sleep after the election — We cannot allow it to happen again.
Stop spending no new taxes, we are bankrupt … All we need is a one line pledge.
I have a great idea. No new laws until the ones already on the books are reviewed, revised or scrapped. We also need for congress to reassert its right to write law rather than govt agencies such as, FCC, EPA, DOE, etc. Additionally such laws as necessary will have oversight and funding to see that they are not abused. Examples: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Additionally, the govt has no legal right to be involved in the automobile, housing, mortgage business, etc. There's much more such as, subsidies and foreign aid; but that can come later.
LOL…exactly!
As was the U-CUT gimmickry of earlier this year, IMO this 'PLEDGE' does not go nearly far enough.
Too many 'freezes', and 'hold the lines' and excuses to remain comfortably ensconced in our DENIAL.
Don't tell me to jump in line behind this pledge before I have even had a chance to explore and think
it through. Don't tell me to support this document only because it will be good for the GOP.
I will take my time, make my own mind. IMO this pledge is a political document born in denial, a piece of
SPIN. Can the GOP tell the truth and win the coming election? Probably NOT.
The majority of the American public has no concept what we face in the next 50 years. SAD but TRUE.
.
Just as progressives have eroded our liberties over the past hundred years, we must boldly reverse the known damage that is a direct affront to original intent.
Repeal the 16th and 17th amendment, make corrections in the 14th eliminate anchor baby’s. At a point privatize Social Security, Medicare. Repeal Executive Order 10988. Eliminate all Great Society programs. Repeal the CRA. Eliminate the Do Energy, Do Education, EPA, IRS, etc. Eliminate 30% of all federal employees, Eliminate all federal funding of universities and colleges, let them compete for private dollars, they can’t make it let them close.
This is just the beginning.
A person after my own heart.
Maybe in the GOP's so called defense of "traditional marriage" they should pass a law saying Christians cant divorce.
Stan, you have my vote for president. If you include the redefining of the 10th.
If the GOP really understood the mood of the country they would inform the people that they would no longer support any bill, program, idea or person that wishes to fundamentally transform this great nation in to a Progressive/Marxist state. And that they would follow the Constitution in all areas causing the review of all bills/laws/programs to ensure that they are in compliance with the founding documents. Then remove all funding from RINOs campaigns.
Everyone:
We already have a contract: It's called the Constitution. All we need to do is figure out a way to successfully remove politicians who do not uphold it. And I mean BEFORE their term is up. Their state's governor can appoint someone else to fulfill the term. If we did this, the system would eventually self-correct. Our elected leaders take an oath to uphold the Constitution. I see no reason why they cannot be removed when they attempt to subvert it. We just need to figure who decides when that has occurred.
You can not believe in the Constitution and suggest such things. Either this is a sick joke, or you need a much better understanding of our founding documents.
Absolutely Cowboy! Nothing else needed until they UNDERSTAND that!
And as I said last night, you are dead on sir and I tip my hat to you but it is the cornerstone. The end of fractional-reserve banking systems is the key to our future. We could have a self-sustaining and self-regulating banking and credit system anytime we want that requires no credit discrimination of any kind and provides consumers with the self-liquidating credit approach. The only issue is that it will end the banking cartel in this country and that is why the ruling-class and banking-class will oppose this to their last breath. The Federal Reserve System Act of 1913 is why 5% of households control the vast majority of wealth – all of us have to support them at our exclusive risk and expense.
I'm sure you have a reason for feeling that way, so why not tell us and we can see if this is a sick joke or not.
It seems we all have the same idea, bring real austerity to government.
This is all fine and dandy but……
Why all the silence and taking crap from the Dems for virtually 2 years only to come up with a "pledge" on behalf of all Americans 40 days before mid-term elections?
This is typical politics so why should we be impressed?
A second flood, a simple famine, plagues of locusts everywhere
or a cataclysmic earthquake–I'd accept with some despair.
But no, You sent us Congress. Good God, Sir, was that fair?
I got your back on THAT!
Kristine for POTUS…..
My opinion on the reason for this "Pledge"?
The GOP knows something is happening. They are alert to that FACT, but they do not quite know what it is. They have heard rumors about this "Tea Party Thingey" from their pollsters and advisers, yet they cannot fathom, nor grasp the concept.
They know the music is playing; they see the bands marching, and they know that the Parade is passing them by. True to form; out of step, and out of time, they are running feverishly to catch up.
They will never make it.
Dump the Patriot Act too.
AMEN
1776 – got on my ipod baby! Good work!
After reading some other replies to your ill-conceived notions, I realize I'm not the only one who shares MY opinion. This is no sick joke…you honestly believe this stuff. None of what you propose can be reconciled with the Constitution. That you don't understand or care that is the case SHOULD be cause for alarm.
I agree! If they really want to impress this gal, they would make the idiots step down, and all bills void. Now THAT would impress the crap out of me.
I also saw it in NYC, the critics panned it, I loved it.
Troll alert!
Nice Christine, I like it.
The all encompassing "Homested Act" of 1862, was 4 pages….!!! Handwritten ….
http://www.nathankramer.com/settle/article/homest...
Great point!
Are you sure you want to be there? Each time I bring up the fact that the Social Security funds
that millions of Boomers have paid in to the Federal Government are GONE, and being bankrupt
the US has no way to recoup those funds in full, I am hammered. More ongoing major DENIAL.
They are victims as thoroughly raped as those of Madoff, but evidently believe in Unicorns and
pixie dust, even at their advanced age. When I advise FACE the MUSIC, I am told I am not a fighter.
There is little in our world in which we may depend, but I always know this,
TRUE NUMBERS DON'T LYE
We can push them and prod them, we can squish them and crunch them, but they will always seek
to LEVEL themselves to reality.
.
Considering where we are today, do you really believe ¾ of the States would ratify this?
Here’s a better starting point:
1) Undo ObamaCare
2) Make the Bush tax cuts permanent
This is like putting lipstick on a RINO!
Face it…we all knew they'd find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think it's part of the RINO's plan to maintain their positions. The question is, "Can we vote enough new blood in to the GOP to straighten the remaining yahoos out"? Well, all I can say is … we're working on it.
Regarding Resolution 1, as much as I despise socialism, outlawing it is not the way to defeat it.
You may as well try to outlaw stupidity.
What they need to do is to get a surety bond on a contract. If they don't complete the "pledge" they are fired and the bond covers the damage.
Right on, right on, right on!!
Pledge in one hand, crap in the other and tell me which one fill up first.
Definition: A solemn undertaking: a solemn promise or undertaking.
Mr. Obama put his hand on the bible to make a "pledge". Our Congressmen and women did the same. All Politicians take this "oath" or "pledge".
In my world, a "handshake" is my bond, it is my "word" that I will uphold my honor by making this pledge. Our Politicians look at this as empty talk over a few martini's only to be forgotten the next day on the never ending quest for their own self interest.
Sue Jeffers (talk Radio ktlk 100.3) has been saying this kind of stuff for years.
I'm going to need some help then Harry.
I'm trying to be Sharia Compliant.
Do I eat with my right hand, and shit in my left, or vive versa?
If I'm south of the Equator, do I reverse the process, or does it automatically swirl in reverse?
A vast majority of the American people too are in denial, not just the politicians. Those who don't participate in the political processes choose to stay out due to the pathetic rhetoric our politicians engage in. They are no more/no less guilty than the other. All of us are guilty in some way-shape-or form.
But apathy over the years by lazy Americans contributed to the problem. That is FACT!!! We will reap what we so if collectively we don't take charge. It's going to get uglier than it is right now but achieving victory has never been a clean process so we need to accept the fact that our hands will continue to get dirtier and dirtier as we go.
I feel Republicans "still don't get it". None of them do really….
Damn CL, you beat me to it…..
LOL
Let's get rid of these radical, freedom destroying zealots and get headed back to the basic principles that have made our country great. Obama and the rest should be tarred, feathered and taken out of Washington on a rail. Treated like the lying and treasonist dogs they are.
Sincerely,
One Proud American Citizen
No teeth, No Paul Ryan!
I have known for most of my adult life that I'd never see a dime of the money I paid into Social Security. I'd be very happy to let them keep it IF they'd just stop stealing from me from this point forward.
You have to understand that a lot of people in America (a large and vocal minority) haven't inherited a full measure of their parents guts. They are afraid of the pain and hardship that facing the truth will bring, and so they are content to "whistle past the graveyard". Anyone with the temerity to intrude upon their little fantasy with the truth must be ridiculed and discredited at all costs. After all, their continued mental stability depends on it!
No. I have no problem standing with you on this one. I believe the Constitution is with us on this issue as well.
If most of these folks dont honor their oath of office, what makes us think they're going to honor this?????
great minds…listening to it now.
I never expect them to honor anything; and true to form, they never fail to let me down.
And once again I read these comments and all I see is those AIDS activists heckling obama.
"We want more."
"We gave you more."
"It's not enough."
"We can do more in the future."
"We want it now."
So no one is going to be happy (hell, forget "happy.") We're going to act like the democrats, the unions, the special interests, the "progressives," and stamp our feet and sneer at every effort until we get every wittle thing we want. And if we don't get it right now, then you are nothing but a bunch of liars and posers, and we'll just give the democrats a nice break while we pour our own acid on this pitifully small first step.
Good job, conservatives. If these House Republicans can't snap their fingers and instantly transform this country back to 1787 America, then piss on them all. What a bunch of whiners.
The fact is there is NOTHING in this document that offends me, or the Conservative movement, so I am not going to play armchair movie critic to tear it down. It is what it is. It's not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. I suggest that if all you can do is sit on your high perch and announce how "you" could have done a better job, then you are no different than the democrats, RINOs, and "progressives" that you have come to loathe. When a true Conservative (ala Ronald Reagan) would have simply said "Nice effort, but we plan to do more and do it even better," instead of throwing barbs under the feet of our own team.
Grow up folks. We are going to be in this fight for a very long time.
You're absolutely right, Rick. And for those who don't get to the second page of comments, I'm going to repeat here what I said later in this thread:
.
.
.
And once again I read these comments and all I see is those AIDS activists heckling obama.
"We want more."
"We gave you more."
"It's not enough."
"We can do more in the future."
"We want it now."
So no one is going to be happy (hell, forget "happy.") We're going to act like the democrats, the unions, the special interests, the "progressives," and stamp our feet and sneer at every effort until we get every wittle thing we want. And if we don't get it right now, then you are nothing but a bunch of liars and posers, and we'll just give the democrats a nice break while we pour our own acid on this pitifully small first step.
Good job, conservatives. If these House Republicans can't snap their fingers and instantly transform this country back to 1787 America, then piss on them all. What a bunch of whiners.
The fact is there is NOTHING in this document that offends me, or the Conservative movement, so I am not going to play armchair movie critic to tear it down. It is what it is. It's not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. I suggest that if all you can do is sit on your high perch and announce how "you" could have done a better job, then you are no different than the democrats, RINOs, and "progressives" that you have come to loathe. When a true Conservative (ala Ronald Reagan) would have simply said "Nice effort, but we plan to do more and do it even better," instead of throwing barbs under the feet of our own team.
Grow up folks. We are going to be in this fight for a very long time.
There was a time when swearing truth or making an oath while placing a hand on the Bible meant something of respect and commitment to truth…..
But with time, there is less respect for this book of life simply because Christianity has become the villain. The word of a Christian God whose principles found in the Bible are the foundations of this nation. It is now considered a "book" and what is slowly being recognized as its replacement is Islam. There is something very, very wrong here.
Ah! The petulant "thumb down". What a pithy retort. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how outlawing political speech is supported by the First Amendment? If you can pass that bar, we'll address some of your other ill-conceived notions. Until then, I've got a good suggestion for what you could do with that thumb.
Constitutionally proper and legal. I like it. It's a good beginning!
Sadly Leaux, you are spot on. Just like our Constitution, all for an ideology intent on control and power. Sickening.
That is mice, men, and RINOs.
Gee thanks……
I feel so much better now.
Socialism can be demonstrated to be a criminal conspiracy and not political free speech and therefore can be outlawed. I thought you had a legitimate beef but it turns out you are just a liberal who wants to continue to use government to redistribute the wealth of those of us who actually produce it. What you are going to find out is that we are going to put an end to redistributing our wealth to support you.
Keep whining, but you and I are done until that day…
If you present them with a complete omnibus plan, yes they will.
We don't have to outlaw stupidity, just the proselytizing of that which produces no sustainable benefit and only comes at a net cost society does not have to bear just like all other criminal behavior.
ryda, I waiver from pillar to post on the GOP's ability to face reality. One day I feel they are
beginning to "get it", then the next day I see them engaged if outright spin and denial.
Today I think they realize if they reveal their knowledge of just how bad this depression we
face will really be it will weaken them to a point they may not recoup.
However, if we who face the music and see the really hard times we face, allow them to
fudge the issues in order to WIN in NOV, what credibility will we have when we begin to
demand they make the cuts necessary to preserve the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC we
must strive to keep?
.
POETIC comment ryda
.
Ha ha ha, I contend they would like to jump in front of the TEA party parade and claim to lead it,
but being neutered as they are, lack sufficient intestinal fortitude leaves them reluctant, lest they
be steam-rolled by CONSERVATISM.
.
No, my sniveling little toad…you don't get off that easy this time. You went and stepped in it with both feet calling me a liberal. We're done when I say we're done.
Your unrepentant ignorance has offended me. I am no liberal, but YOU, apparently, are a Marxist subversive. You openly advocate for the violation of the Constitution and resort to name-calling because that's the most intelligent defense you can come up with. Either your stupidity knows no bounds, or your treachery is beneath contempt.
So…don't take that saucy tone with me, bee-ach. Why don't you move to Cuba, where you'll be happy?
NOW we're done.
Great platform Kristine, have you ever thought about running for office? I might add just one more, repeal the Patriot Act.
And here is an email I received from the "Contract From America" people on the new "Pledge." I wondered how they would react to the House Republicans document. Would they trash it because it wasn't THEIR document? Or would they take the high road and continue the push forward toward our Conservative goals? Read it for yourself:
Statement on the Republican “Pledge To America”
The Contract from America Foundation (www.contractfromamerica.org) made the following announcement today regarding the newly released Republican “Pledge to America”:
We are pleased that the Republicans were so heavily influenced by the message of the grassroots Contract from America that their “Pledge to America” includes many of our Contract’s planks, including the top-voted idea to “Protect the Constitution” by requiring every bill to cite Constitutional authority, rejection of Cap and Trade, the imposition of meaningful spending limits, repeal of government-run health care, and extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We are also pleased that they so admired the Contract’s model of allowing for real citizen input that they created their own website, America Speaking Out, to approximate the same function. This is evidence that Republicans are beginning to listen to the millions of ordinary Americans that are fed up with Washington’s ways.
Republican Congressmen, Senators, and candidates should still sign the Contract from America, which boldly tackles the challenges of fundamental tax reform, passage of a balanced budget amendment with a supermajority requirement for any tax hike, and real earmark reform.
The Contract from America is handed up from the true grassroots in this country. After garnering nearly half a million votes in less than two months, the Contract from America is a blueprint that reflects what the people want for their future. If Republicans sign the Contract, they will prove that they are listening to the will of millions of grassroots activists that have protested the unconscionable expansion of government.
Over 300 candidates have signed the Contract from America, including Senators DeMint and Coburn, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Representative Michele Bachmann, and Senate candidates Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Jerry Moran, Dino Rossi, Ron Johnson, John Boozman, Kelly Ayotte, and John Raese.
I wouldn't want to deprive you of your seat on the boat, Comrade Progressive Socialist.
You took the words right out of my mouth Harry.
I'm still not seeing your 1st Amendment defense of outlawing political speech! What's the matter, Brainiac? Could it be that you've got nothing but name calling? How does it feel to be so completely impotent? LOL!
Exactly……
We, the ones facing the music, have no credibility in the eyes of the current administration. Neither does the repubs/conservs. They fear the TP but use deceit to embolden their lies over us. The principles we demand from government can never stray from the course. If repubs choose to turn a blind eye or continue their own complacency, it is extremely important that the voice of the American people through the polls demand better and maintain accountability throughout the duration. Rinos removed from office through the polls only to jump party ship should be chastised by ignoring their existence during periods leading up to the election. NO VOTES for them. That's like getting fired from a job, only to return to work, get on the assembly line, then demand payment for working. It doesn't work that way. There is plenty required of us during this process but "FOCUS" remains at the top of our list of responsibilities.
Like Beck stated – Congress salary is based off the military salary ….
But at least my 26 YEAR OLD "CHILD" can stay on my healthcare plan !!!!!
Socialism, constitutes wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the public as it creates no sustainable public benefit and comes at a net cost to societies that suffer under it and this is why it has always failed.
I see you like socialism now?
Let's see… Socialists like big-government and are opposed to privatizing Social Security. I would make it unconstitutional for the government to operate Social Security without competition. You would oppose that I'm sure.
Let's see… Socialists like government-run health care and I would make it unconstitutional for the government to operate any health care system that compels citizens to pay a fee whether they use the government's program or not. I'm sure you hate that too.
Let's see… Socialists love fractional-reserve banking because it provides a very convenient means for concentration of wealth and the formation of a monopoly that is used to support the banking industry at the sole risk and expense of the citizens and it is neither self-sustaining nor self-regulating. I would make fractional-reserve banking unconstitutional and I bet you would oppose that too.
Let's see… Socialists love public education and I would make it unconstitutional for the government to operate or regulate education, but force it to operate education on a free-market basis in direct competition against the private sector and without the benefit of mandatory taxpayer support of any kind. I'm sure you would oppose that too.
Kiss kiss comrade. In the end, you are what you are and you are just another big-government socialist who desperately wants the ability to continue to steal money from the people of this land and we are going to find a way to put an end to it once and for all.
If you are such "free speech" guy and this is soooooo bad, then you would have no reason to oppose an Article V Constitutional Convention and let the states decide. If 75% of the states ratify it, then it becomes the new law. If they don't you get to continue to promote a criminal conspiracy. Since you support free speech, you can hardly be opposed to putting it on the ballot now can you?
hahahahahahahahahaha…. BUSTED…. kiss, kiss now. comrade!
Sorry man you're on your own with that one.
I haven't had the nerve to open the article from POLITICO at the top of the page,
entitled GOP Agenda to Include Social Issues yet.
The TEA Party to this date has gone to great lengths to avoid becoming embroiled
on 'the social issues'. Conservatism leading to smaller government and lower taxes
has been all we needed to get a hell of a head of steam behind this locomotive.
Now in their infinite wisdom the GOP is evidently planning to bring abortion, g a y rights,
et al into the mix. In 07 millions of Christians made a statement by withholding their
votes due to their disagreement with the GOP on the social issues. I guess I could
read the damn thing before passing judgment, but fear I will find they are as ignorant
as I expect them to be.
Let's all pull out our six-shooters and blast ourselves in the foot. Sounds like a really
good idea to me…
remember:
sarcasm is my middle name…
.
Marriage is a failed institution. I say if g..ays want to subject themselves to the same misery as heterosexuals, let them.
I do agree with some of your points though. 4-7 would definitely help.
Please describe the "self-liquidating credit approach". After years of working at banks, many credits of economics, and decades of either auditing, or accounting work, I've never heard of a system of banking finance called "the self-liquidating credit approach". Also, it seems to me that "fractional reserve" predates the Fed, since even under State regulation of banks, a requirement existed that banks maintain a "reserve", which is only to say that a calculation must be made to prevent over-lending. That does not seem to be the central problem involved in concentrated wealth, or in deficient banking, from what I see looking at it. I'd place "too big to fail", which has been a result mainly of lax oversight by government types of all stripes, taken together with ill-conceived programs to support ownership of housing, as being the primary drivers of the current disaster.
Let me tell you, I understand why credible thinkers criticize the Federal Reserve System. I'm not particularly happy with the way it was created, or its performance over the years. Also I find it very suspicious that it was created during the Wilson administration. Nonetheless, I'd think that critics need to simultaneously propose and lay out in detail what they propose as an alternative to both the present system, and to a totally unregulated banking system.
Naturally, my main concerns about any alternate banking system, or change to the banking system mainly is:
How does this system work?
Does this provide for sufficient capital formation into this amended or new system, that lending will continue at sufficient levels for the economy to prosper?
I'd add that one obvious sign of the deficiencies of the Fed system is the recent debacle itself, together with the current lack of lending, despite (or BECAUSE OF) the Fed stance on virtually zero interest money for banks.
Personally, when I criticize some important piece of existing statutes or of systems, I make it a point to lay out not only my objections, but my proposed alternatives and solutions. That way, it makes my argument more powerful, because the words are not just a "tearing down", but also a "building up".
So you'd like to repeal medicare and social security as well as the public school system and perhaps privatize the military too? Yeah, thats a great idea! Maybe we should cut off ties with the Canadian, British, and Israeli governments since they all have socialist systems and are now part of a criminal conspiracy?
I'm glad you asked this question because it is a teaching and learning opportunity. The problem with fractional-reserve banking is that it is neither self-sustaining nor self-regulating in nature for two (2) important reasons:
(i) it is built upon the premise of exclusive rights that come at the cost and risk of the other stakeholders in the economic society it serves. Fractional-reserve banking and deposit multiplication is legal when a company is organized as a bank and it is a felony crime called "check kiting" when it is done by anyone else. This means it is not self-sustaining in nature, because; by definition, it creates an exclusive set of privileges and rights owing to the banking-industry that the other stakeholders have to sustain. This AUTOMATICALLY leads to the corruption of the banking system we see today because bankers know this and force the users (all of us) to have to accept moral hazards as a result. This means it is not self-regulating either, as moral hazards and conflicts-of-interest are an automatic outcome as a result of the STRUCTURAL shortcomings inherent to the fractional-reserve business model. Furthermore, the system is based upon being able (or forced depending upon your point of view) use the rest of us to sustain the banking system because the government participates in the system as both a borrower and a lender. For credit systems to be self-sustaining in nature, they cannot discriminate (and fractional-reserve banking cannot operate without practicing discrimination due to the obsolete business operating model that defines this system) and the government cannot be a lender and a borrower in the system, as these issues create biases that lead to the artificial inflation of credit markets and asset classes -as has been the actual case with the Federal Reserve System Act of 1912 (22 banking panics since its enactment in 1913). This is partially due to the currency inflation issue.
(ii) In the United States we use the liability-expansion method (called ex nihilo currency inflation) of creating currency and this is fundamentally flawed and creates the condition precedent that means the banking system has to continually fail because no money can come into existence that is not first allocated as a liability for which all stakeholders in the economy must agree is owed to the banking industry. This means there is no real wealth creation outside the banking industry as all money is owed and constitutes a liability (this is why money supply reports and audit reports on Federal Reserve activities are kept confidential – revealing this information is liable to create a huge bank panic). Because all money is owed as a liability, this means that all loans are subject to call (demand for payment and settlement) and this means that if there is a deposit run at a commercial bank that participates in the Federal Reserve System using deposit multiplication, the bank would be destroyed. This means the bank is automatically placed in the position of having to use a business model that discriminates instead of a business model that prices credit strictly as a commodity – the qualification is a discriminatory process called "credit scoring" – where a SUBJECTIVE analytical process is used to determine who gets credit and who doesn't in the market based upon a system of credit scores that mean different things, to different banks at different times. This means the system was created for one purpose: to allow the ruling-class the opportunity to decide market winners and losers (by which the ruling-class profits) instead of allowing the system to evolve into a workable business model.
Do we at least agree on these fundamental points of why what we are doing does not work before I describe what will work (meaning a system that is self-sustaining, self-regulating and uses no discrimination or allows any loans to exist that are not always paid off)?
If you have a question on this I will go in as much depth as you would like to make sure we understand what we don't want (based upon empirical observations about the structures and outcomes to date) before we get to a complete solution that works 100% of the time and can never crash or fail.
You must be logged in to post a comment.