Tea Party protest

[JamesTJ]

It took more than 3 years to get us into this mess, but politicians and political parties really only plan on a 3-year cycle -

so that 3 years from now they can declare:

 

"Look, LOOK! we fixed it! Elect us again!"

 

This rush-job ham-fisted spend-fix isn't good for the nation, but they don't really care about that.

[humanbean234]

CNN is fundamentally flawed, but this more in line with party politics... not even 1 time have seen CNN really give a good report or coverage of the events of this day. So they have chosen to ignore this to support their political cause. Both sides are at fault for our current tax system and economic. I live in Atlanta, I can not even get close to what is happening... As Business owner, I want lower taxes and yes my anger is high today.. The Tax code we have is unjust, to all Americans it has to change....

Okay, if you don't like that summary (just because it comes from CNN), how about the same thing, explained in detail, from both the Washington Post and Money magazine?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7123001909.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/c...mptiontax_0510/

[humanbean234]

Let's start with Enron and the California crisis.

 

If you read the intro to the link you posted, you'd find that BECAUSE of the regulations, one company went out of business and another had to be bailed out! That's because the price controls forced them to to operate at a loss of revenue. No profit = no business.

 

Now, according to here:

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

 

It wasn't just deregulation that killed Enron (Who should've profited massively) but funky accounting practices from the 1990s. I case you hadn't noticed, that's long before the deregulation took place. Also, a lot of people despised Gray Davis for his handling of the energy crisis. That's how Ahnold got elected governor in the first place, not to mention the .com bust that helped California's economy in no way imaginable. (unless one uses the "destructive creativity" argument)

 

You've got it backwards. Deregulation didn't kill Enron, deregulation was what allowed Enron to thrive in the first place and gouge the hell out of consumers by unethically manipulating the spot market for electricity, thus causing the rolling blackouts and allowing them to commit such shoddy accounting practices. Re-read the article I linked to.

 

"Also, check out the 1995 amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act.

In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating. The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Rei...ry_changes_1995

 

Look at where Bear and Freddie Mac are now.

 

The implied AAA rating on subprime mortgage securities handled by both firms was based on underwriting from firms like AIG, who had leveraged their underwriting capital beyond the previously allowed 12:1 ratio (citations needed, but the wiki states "The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30%.")

 

No, there are 3 major reasons this economic crunch took place:

 

1. Too many people making mortgages they can't pay off. This is not just happening in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime...inancial_crisis

 

2. Incredibly high oil prices in 2007 and 2008. This can be from several factors which is a completely different debate. Let's just say $4-5 per gallon gas didn't exactly give our economy a boost.

 

3. This.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Please explain how deregulation could possibly repair damage caused by earlier deregulation?

[juderodney]

I'm not arguing for or against deregulation of anything. My problem is the FEDERAL bureaucracy which has run up over $11,000,000,000,000 of deficit and is expecting spend $800,000,000,000 more than it simply does not have!

(I put the pure numbers up to show just how enormous the numbers we're dealing with are.)

 

That's why the the tea parties are going on. That's why now more than half of the states are working on or have passed 10th amendment resolutions.

 

You want regulations? Let each individual state, which has a better grasp on the current state and scale of its economy, culture and the moral values of its people than the feds do, handle the regulating. The United States are too diverse for federal one-size-fits-all policies.

 

 

As far as California is concerned, it was only a partial deregulation. While the wholesale electrical markets rose sharply, the retail was still price-capped, causing massive debts and business failure until the state stepped back in. It wasn't the deregulation, it was the poor planning and slow response by the California government when the first signs of impending doom started showing themselves. To this day the deregulation is still in place and no further price earthquakes have happened.

 

Some of the positive aftermaths of the crisis are there are now 38 new in-state power plants being constructed and "Path 15" (with which, due to lack of improvement caused a electrical "bottlenecking" which only inflamed the prices further) received its much-needed improvements.

[humanbean234]

I'm not very certain what challenges the states can pose to 10th Amendment precedents already in place.

 

From the wiki on 10th Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

 

"According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). The Commerce Clause is one of the Article 1 Section 8 powers specifically delegated to Congress and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

 

In the twentieth century, complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy."

 

The commerce clause gives the federal government a rather broad hand in regulating anything pertaining to the national economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

 

Established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942, U.S.S.C.)

 

The opinion pointed out that prior decisions had identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.

 

.First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.

.Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;

.Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).

 

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes from these attempts.

[ed8020]

So what pray tell are we supposed to do?

Let it collapse?

Perhaps Texas should secede.

Let them guard the border by themselves.

Fend for themselves in the current economy.

Clean up their own mess when a hurricane rolls through.

We don’t have hurricanes here or tornadoes for that matter.

Why should I care what happens to those people?

Hell. We have those nice friendly Canadians to our north.

Friendly Oregonians to the south.

Well we do have northern Idaho to the east.

Definitely gonna have to put up a fence there and keep an eye on those folks.

Tons of farmland with excellent irrigation and a rather stable hydroelectrical system.

Why not?

Hell. How about city states?

I really don’t like Spokane that much, and they are right next to Idaho.

Then we just need to guard a few passes.

Nope. That won’t work.

We’ll have to go take those dams so back to plan A.

 

Truthfully, Washington could survive the dark times better than most.

And that’s exactly what we would be looking at.

I like post holocaust in my games, not my daily life.

I hear lots of pissing and moaning but that’s it.

Give me a solution better than “Screw you guys. I’m goin home”.

 

Since the 1790s the economy has gone through a 15 year cycle of bubble and burst, until the great depression. At that time we introduced the FDIC and a whole slew of financial regulations. We had relative stability for 50 years, until deregulation. Then it started to crumble with the S&Ls until we get to today where it’s all falling apart because of deregulation. This includes a complete lack of oversight from Enron to Wall street, that allowed them to cook the books.

If you focus on your own petty little problems you lose sight of the big picture.

 

And as for the FNC Tea Party Revolution. It’s far too little, way too late.

Where have you guys been for the last 8 years?

Cuz thats how long it's been since we had a surplus IIRC.

 

Sorry I'm not as eloquent as humanbean.

[juderodney]

I'm not talking about interstate commerce but economies that exist within their own states.

 

Follow the links in my first post for a more detailed explanation.

[ed8020]

There wasn’t much detail there at all.

I read and heard a lot of generalities but only a couple specifics..

OK. So you want to “re assert” the 10th amendment. What exactly would that change?

I don’t know how many times I heard that states don’t want to be “enticed” or “coerced” (I think that’s the word they used), but it was several.

Enticed? Really? I can understand coerced but enticed?

Coerced into what?

Exactly what programs are you being coerced into and with what?

I have a couple ideas but no specifics.

What does it mean to you?

What do you hope to accomplish other than remind the feds that you are a sovereign state?

[juderodney]

There wasn’t much detail there at all.

I read and heard a lot of generalities but only a couple specifics..

OK. So you want to “re assert” the 10th amendment. What exactly would that change?

I don’t know how many times I heard that states don’t want to be “enticed” or “coerced” (I think that’s the word they used), but it was several.

Enticed? Really? I can understand coerced but enticed?

Coerced into what?

Exactly what programs are you being coerced into and with what?

I have a couple ideas but no specifics.

What does it mean to you?

What do you hope to accomplish other than remind the feds that you are a sovereign state?

 

Oh, let's see... The New Deal, The "War on Poverty", The Department of Education, gun bans, federal raids on state-licensed marijuana growers... all power grabs by the feds.

[Skolhamarr]

Those state that are introduction the 10th amendment, my belief would they would leave as unit. Form federal control, 31 state in all are introduction such action. It is mostly the South, Southwest and western states. Those state are the heart of the nation, and not Washington nor Hollywood. I really do not want to see these action, to really move forward. More of the move by the states to bring the feds to understanding. Right now as we stand, the US could not afford those action. The world and our enemies would see that as weakness and we would be wide open for unchecked attack on global level. With our current interest around the world, this is really not the time for such said action.

 

Bring the feds to the table, try to talk to them about the issue the people want to stated and still staying apart of Union. If that can not be resolved, keep trying at the ballot box.. the last resort leave the union and those 31 state leave united and create a new US. Let Ca burn and sink, FL, CO, NB, MI, and those in the north east.... I hate to see it like this but it is red state vs blue state....

 

10th amendment introduction

Wisconsin

 

Illinois

 

West Virginia

 

North Carolina

 

North Dakota (passed house 52-40 on 04-07-09)

 

Ohio

 

Nevada

 

Oregon

 

Alabama (2nd Resolution, HJR403, introduced 03-24-09)

 

Mississippi (senate resolution introduced 03-10-09)

 

Pennsylvania (senate resolution introduced 03-19-09)

 

Idaho (Passed House 51-17, on 03-23-09, Passed Senate on 04-07-09)

 

New Mexico (tabled in committee)

 

South Dakota (passed house on 03-03-09 by a vote of 51-18, passed senate on 03-05-09 by a vote of 20-14)

 

Virginia

 

Kentucky (2nd resolution introduced on 02/24)

 

Alaska (2nd resolution introduced 03-19-09) (HJR27 Passed 37-0 on 04-06-09)

 

Indiana (2nd Senate Resolution Introduced 03-19-09) (SR0042 Passed Committe 8-0 on 04-01-09) (SR0042 Passed Senate 44-3 on 04-09-09)

 

Tennessee

 

Arkansas (failed in committee on 03-04-09 passed committee 04-01-09 failed House vote, 54-34)

 

Minnesota

 

South Carolina (passed house on 02-26-09, senate - referred to subcommittee)

 

Georgia (Senate Version - Passed 43-1 on 04/01/09)

 

Kansas

 

Texas (senate resolution introduced 03-02-09 - senate’s 2nd resolution introduced on 03-04-09)

 

New Hampshire (resolution killed in house on 03-04-09: 216-150)

 

Missouri

 

Iowa

 

Montana (Failed 51-49 on 02-24-09) (Resolution reintroduced as HR3) (HR3 Hearing Scheduled for 04-15-09)

 

Michigan (senate version introduced 03-03-09)

 

Arizona

 

Washington

 

Oklahoma (passed house on 02/18/09, senate version passed 25-17 on 03-04-09) (Joint version passed Senate, 29-18 on 04-15-09 - returns to House for vote)