Congress & separation of powers
Congress or should I say Democrats need to go back to school and learn about separation of powers. The president and Vice president are not answerable to congress the same goes for congress they do not answer to the president and the Supreme Court does not answer to ether that’s called separation of powers. The president does not have to report but 1 time a year and that is at the state of the union other then that the president and congress answer only to the people. Maybe that’s why the congress now days have a problem with what they have been trying to do they do not know how a true democracy works only socialism. That’s why the immigration bill failed not that we did not want something done it was the way congress was doing it. Back room I know better then you congressmen and women tried to force a bill that we did not know about down our throats without hearing from the people. And when they did hear from us they were outraged about it you know how dare us tell them what to do I mean we are only the people and they are the elite our betters.
Sounds like we need to kick them out they are sounding too much like those British nobles for my liking. I say start over and this time make all would be law makers take a collage class on the constitution and they receive only room and board plus meals at a military mess, most would not want the office after that.
This letter has not been edited.
Would a collage class help their grammur?
Posted by on July 16, 2007 02:31 PMReally Joseph. What on earth are you babbling about??
Posted by conservative media on July 16, 2007 03:02 PMJoseph, please have someone proofread your meanderings before posting. Not only is your grammar horrific, but your train of thought is all over the place.
For example, "they (congress) do not know how a true democracy works only socialism."
Huh? Please quit parroting right-wing myths about Democrats.... I have yet to meet a Democrat who truly wants to replace the free-market ideals of this country with "socialism". If you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten.
"I say start over and this time make all would be law makers take a collage class on the constitution and they receive only room and board plus meals at a military mess, most would not want the office after that."
Again, huh? What on earth does any of this mean or have to do with the separation of powers, which was your overall point, I am assuming?
"Back room I know better then you congressmen and women tried to force a bill that we did not know about down our throats without hearing from the people. And when they did hear from us they were outraged about it you know how dare us tell them what to do I mean we are only the people and they are the elite our betters."
All I can say here is, ummm...... yyyyeah. Whatever.
Joseph, there are checks and balances put into place that allows each branch to police the other in certain instances.
And as far as your bleating about Congress' support of the immigration bill (which is a fallacy, as the bill did indeed die in Congress after all, so apparently they must not have been in support of it....hmm?), let's not forget that the president you are defending in the first half of your letter was one of the strongest proponents of the bill. In fact, he tried to negotiate with his Republican counterparts in Congress to support it.
Please Joseph, the next time you write a letter.... LESS CAFFEINE.
Hey Dan since you are so keen on facts . Check yours out please. The bill died in the Senate not in Congress. A big differance there.
Posted by on July 16, 2007 05:40 PM5:40PM,
You say: "The bill died in the Senate not in Congress. A big differance there." So the Senate is not part of Congress? Is your real name Dick Cheney?!
For your edification: The United States CONGRESS is the legislature of the U.S. federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and SENATE.
Yeesh.
Posted by Dan on July 16, 2007 06:15 PMDan,
Don't you just hate it when someone catches you in a mistake, when you seem so excited about criticizing other people? Typical far-left response.
"Huh? Please quit parroting right-wing myths about Democrats.... I have yet to meet a Democrat who truly wants to replace the free-market ideals of this country with "socialism". If you have evidence to the contrary, please enlighten."
George Soros, Peter Anderson, Warren Buffet, the ACLU and Hilary's idea for health care sure smells like socialism to me. We won't even mention Kennedy's idea for his nanny state.
If it looks like a duck, acts like a ducks and talks like a duck, IT"S A DUCK!
jgd777 said:
"Typical far-left response."
Bill O'Reilly is his Edgar Bergen. (The guy gets around).
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 06:58 PMjgd777,
Just what mistake did "5:40pm" catch me in? Also, I'm not far-left. In fact, in my core philosophy in terms of governance, I consider myself a conservative, though not the 21st century bastardized version of conservatism you see nowadays.
Great.... you've parroted some names of some evil lefties. Can you provide me links of where they say they would like to replace our free-market system and our representative government with communism? Also, please also provide me a link demonstrating where the majority of Democrats have chosen those individuals to be their spokespeople for the Democratic agenda, and to represent the thoughts and philosophies of all Democrats. I'll give you Hillary, since she's an elected representative.....
Posted by Dan on July 16, 2007 07:01 PMDan,
Congress is the combined branch of the government, while the Senate is only a potion thereof. The bill died in the Senate, because the House was not involved in the voting.
George Soros is one of the biggest donor for MOVEON.org, and was the money behind Air America both are far-left organizations. He is also a major contributor to Democrat's reelection campaigns. The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin a self proclaimed socialist. Peter Anderson CEO of Progressive insurance is also a major contributor to the Democrats.
I have lived in a socialist country and believe me every time the Democrats come up with "sharing the wealth", it stinks of Socialism. The Dems try to disguise their programs as humanitarian causes, but somehow they don't want to contribute, Soros's money is in a offshore account, along with Kennedy's They want to share but share other people's monies not theirs
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 07:33 PMCharles B
You forgot to start your post with "I hate Bush and Cheney"
You are correct I do listen to Bill OReilly and Fox News, but I also listen to CNN and MSNBC, in addition I read three newspapers everyday. Unlike you I prefer to hear both sides of the stories. Everyone of them beats moveon.org, which seems to be your major source of "knowledge"
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 07:44 PMBecause if you're going to pick a socialist out of the crowd, I'd pick the CEO of an insurance company and /or the multi billionaire businessman.
Posted by MM on July 16, 2007 08:59 PMjgd777,
Seriously.... you are stretching. Just because Peter Anderson and George Soros are contributors to the Democratic Party does not mean they want to turn America into a communist nation. Moveon.org and Air America may be to the left philosophically, but I have yet to see a mission statement from either that they want to turn America into a communist nation. If you want to go that far, I could argue that any candidate who accepts money from Focus on the Family is intent on transforming this nation into a theocracy, an equally ridiculous assertion. Please jgd777, provide REAL evidence that that is their intent. Contributing to the Democratic Party does not make you socialist or communist or indicate that you want to eliminate the free market.
No kidding Senate is only a portion of Congress. But they ARE a part of Congress! Excuuuuuse me for generalizing-- I thought people like you and 5:40pm were smart enough to understand, nor can I believe you are actually spending the time nitpicking the obvious. Weren't there more important points in my post you would rather debate?!
"The Dems try to disguise their programs as humanitarian causes, but somehow they don't want to contribute."
Didn't you just say that George Soros is the biggest contributor to Moveon.org? Would he not be a socialist if he donated his money instead to only the causes you support?
jdg, you may disagree with the philosophies of the aforementioned individuals, and that is your right. But it is THEIR right to spend their money as they see fit. Just because they choose to support certain liberal organizations does not make them a threat to the country.
Posted by Dan on July 16, 2007 09:06 PMMM,
I would also, because if you understand a socialist society there is also a group on the top of filthy rich people. They are the ones convincing the rest of the people that sharing the wealth is a good thing, however they do not include themselves, which makes them rich and powerful.
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 09:11 PMDan,
Anyone who would sponsor and support all of these nanny state programs and then turn around and ship all of their money to offshore accounts so they will not be taxed are hypocrites to say the least.
Soros outwardly supports a world government, controlled by the UN no less. I can't think of a more devastating thing that could happen to this country.
As I have stated before, in a socialist state the elite few control everything and that is the position Soros and Anderson want to be in. They want to be in a position to do whatever they want with no interference from the people.
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 09:24 PMjgd777-
You stated- "As I have stated before, in a socialist state the elite few control everything and that is the position Soros and Anderson want to be in."
How is that different than the current situation in the US?
Posted by BO on July 16, 2007 09:56 PMI don't even understand why this letter is about separation of church and state.
Joseph, please learn about 'commas', it would really help you out. And complete sentences wouldn't hurt either, it would help you get taken seriously.
As it is, you write like a backwards, genuflecting wannabe who prays at the alter of white, corporate greed which decided to $hit-can history's greatest democracy.
jgd777 - get a clue - There are already people in the position of being the elite few who control everything and it ain't Soros and Anderson.
I don't even understand why this letter is about separation of church and state.
Joseph, please learn about 'commas', it would really help you out. And complete sentences wouldn't hurt either, it would help you get taken seriously.
As it is, you write like a backwards, genuflecting wannabe who prays at the alter of white, corporate greed which decided to $hit-can history's greatest democracy.
jgd777 - get a clue - There are already people in the position of being the elite few who control everything and it ain't Soros and Anderson.
I don't even understand why this letter is about separation of church and state.
Joseph, please learn about 'commas', it would really help you out. And complete sentences wouldn't hurt either, it would help you get taken seriously.
As it is, you write like a backwards, genuflecting wannabe who prays at the alter of white, corporate greed which decided to $hit-can history's greatest democracy.
jgd777 - get a clue - There are already people in the position of being the elite few who control everything and it ain't Soros and Anderson.
I don't even understand why this letter is about separation of church and state.
Joseph, please learn about 'commas', it would really help you out. And complete sentences wouldn't hurt either, it would help you get taken seriously.
As it is, you write like a backwards, genuflecting wannabe who prays at the alter of white, corporate greed which decided to $hit-can history's greatest democracy.
jgd777 - get a clue - There are already people in the position of being the elite few who control everything and it ain't Soros and Anderson.
BO,
"How is that different than the current situation in the US?"
In this country everyone still has the opportunity to succeed, in a socialist country that is impossible. With the right idea and lots of hard work you could be as rich as Bill Gates, this country allows to do that. In a socialist country unless you were born into the rich and powerful you will stay poor your entire life. A socialist government will decide how much money you can make, what kind of house you will live in, and what schools your children will go to.
With Hilary's stance on sharing the wealth, that is exactly what she is saying, everyone will get the same, except of course those elite few.
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 10:09 PMJeri,
"get a clue - There are already people in the position of being the elite few who control everything and it ain't Soros and Anderson."
Exactly who are these "elite few" you are talking about?
Jeri,
One posting is enough! We don't need to read it four times.
Don't you just hate it when people nitpick? You might want to think about that in the future.
Posted by jgd777 on July 16, 2007 10:21 PM"With Hilary's stance on sharing the wealth, that is exactly what she is saying, everyone will get the same, except of course those elite few."
I have never heard Hillary say this. Trust me, I am not a Hillary supporter, so I don't typically defend her, but it occurs to me you like to project your own opinions as other peoples' viewpoints. Please provide a link of where she actually elaborates this viewpoint.
"Exactly who are these 'elite few' you are talking about?"
They are called corporations, jgd, and they are complicit in all of the "socialist" crimes you just elaborated on, including offshoring and rigging the system to benefit their own ends.
"A socialist government will decide how much money you can make, what kind of house you will live in, and what schools your children will go to."
Just like the kind of government that tells you who you can marry, or what women should do with their own bodies, or what recreations I choose to pursue in my own home?
Seriously, jgd, I am staunchly libertarian in my philosophies.... my arguments with you are not in any way in defense of any socialist agendas. I could care less about George Soros or any of the people you have mentioned as being socialist, and if you believe they are, then so be it... I am not going to argue that point with you anymore.
However, let's be clear-- the Republican Party is as complicit (and lately has been MORE complicit) in the cancerous growth of big, nanny government as the Democratic Party is, and you have yet to throw them under the bus. This is where I am calling you out.
You hate Soros? Fine. But you can't ignore Bush & Co. who wiretaps without checks and balances, interferes with and CENSORS reports that they doesn't like from NASA and the surgeon general, politicizes the DoJ, bankrupts the country with huge deficits so that eventually ALL your tax money goes toward debt interest, and (allegedly, I am forced to add) participates in voter caging.
You want government off your back, jgd? You want freedom and equal opportunity for all? Then clean up your party while you watchdog the other, because it ain't the "socialists" who are destroying this country.
People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?
We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that largely unregulated capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.
It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society too much.
The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.
So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.
Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.
Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But it is not the predatory capitalism of the past but the present socialized capitalism that has given the United States its greatness. Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, an never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.
It should be no surprise that the extremes of capitalism and socialism don't work and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.
Excellent essay, Truth.
Posted by Dan on July 17, 2007 09:59 AMDan - Do a little research on Soros. jgd hit the nail on the head. Check out his Open Society website. Read about his vision for a one world government.
This guy has enough money to eliminate health insurance woes and wipe out poverty all in one stroke yet he prefers to give hundreds of millions to politicians in his attempts to convert our style of government.
That one true fact alone is enough to be leary about his motivations he claims are to "help people."
Posted by on July 17, 2007 12:07 PMThe above was from me Dan.
Posted by KW on July 17, 2007 12:24 PMlet`s setl up a death match between Soros and Rupert Murdock.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 17, 2007 12:41 PMSharon,
This country is in fact in a death match and it is between the far-left and the far-right. Sadly the rest of us in the middle will be the causalities, because we are to tied up arguing with each other about which one of them are the biggest evil.
Over the course of the last twenty years or so, nothing constructive has come out of Congress. Before anyone jumps in with "its the Republicans fault" or "It's the Democrats fault" the true is it is our fault. We sit back and listen to the lies being told to us by both parties. No one seems to want to consider both sides of any issue. All you have to do is read some of these post and you will see what I mean.
There is a middle ground on every issue facing this country, but you have to be able to look at both sides "objectively" to find it. Sorry I was dreaming again! The "Gotcha" game is far more popular
Posted by jgd777 on July 17, 2007 03:38 PMjgd,
What you just said in your 3:38pm post is the one thing you said here that I 100% agree with.
jdg777,
It would be nice - might even proove interesting - were you ever to do a little bit of research to find that "middle ground" yourself. But then again, blasting off about "socialist", and "elite few", etc., etc., is far more entertaining than bothering to seach for facts. Isn't it? It must be, since that's all you do, for endless postings.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 18, 2007 10:37 AMOld Grouch,
I have lived in a socialist (Communist) country for several years, How about you? I have seen first hand how things work there. Lately all I have heard from the Democrats mimic those same ideas. So when you want to argue facts you let me know, Your information about socialism comes from Moveon.org and I have lived through it. Socialism creates two tiers in the population, the elite few and the poor, there is little or no middle class in a socialist society. Every time we put the government in charge of a program (like health care) we are promoting socialism.
"Middle ground" is a position that protects and benefits the vast majority of the legal citizens of this country. Not big business, politicians, labor unions, criminals or any other special interest group, and both parties are guilty of this. Did you get that "Old Grouch" I said both parties!
Being a one-sided hard head, kind of disqualifies you from approaching a "middle ground" to any issue. When you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!
Posted by jgd777 on July 18, 2007 03:45 PMjgd777,
Well, what would you call someone who always insist on putting both thoughts and words into someone else's mind, even though the other person DOES NOT hold the thoughts, nor does the other person express them in the words?
You are good at sloganeering. But that doesn't mean you even begin to know what you're talking about. Try the idea on for size of being a big part of the problem yourself, with your fixed ideas of what other people are supposed to be thinking and saying.
Your anecdotal approach to everything is about as "one-sided, hard head" as can be. But, if it makes you happy to do nothing more than set up straw men, and spend time knocking them down, that's O.K. here too.
Where in your experience of living in a "socialist" (Communist) country did you ever encounter an open forum such as this one? Maybe - just maybe; but highly unlikely - if you took some time to consider the differences in your "experiences" - rather than just reliving old ones to criticze anything new and different - you might be on the way to at least attempting to find that "middle ground" you claim others don't have because they don't happen to see things as all being equal to your anecdotes about past life.
But, then again, that would mean you would actually have to take time to read what others write, and discern what they ARE saying; and that means you might have to recognize that your past experiences are not the be all and end all of the way things are in this country. And, so far anyway, you really show no signs of even wanting to make the effort there.
All political experiences create, in some way, situations that do not match particular ideas of how the ideals of government should function. Your dislike of former government in your experience, however, does not make your assertions about government in this country either valid or worthwhile.
And just by the way, my "information about socialism" has never come from "Moveon.org". I have studied history - including the works of Marx, Engels, Mao, and others - for some 65+ years now; and I have been a voter in American elections for some 57 years as well, taking part in several areas of politics in this State and elsewhere. So, my experience is just as "first hand" when it comes to Ameican politics and American political parties as any you have to offer about your previous life elsewhere.
I've as much - or a great deal more - knowledge of the REALITY of "middle ground "in American poiitics than anyone who seeks to tell me what "middle ground" "ought to be" from experience elsewhere.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 18, 2007 07:39 PM