You got it Feisty......reportedly, Thomas never says anything anyway.

Talk about asleep on the bench!

I know this thread is about the Supremes, however the REAL story being being ignored by American Media is about OIL.

Saudi Arabia has CUT production because of an Overabundance in the world markets.

Anyone of you Pundits here at 1st Read care to tackle this problem of Oil Commodity Speculater's fleecing American's AGAIN?

It's ALWAYS "but the middle east turmoil..." or 'but it's summer blends additives costs...." or "but a pipeline broke...." or 'there was a refinery fire...." or 'India is using more now"..... It's NEVER reproted what the speculators are doing!! And THEY are running up the prices more than all those other things COMBINED I bet.

Anyone of you Pundits here at 1st Read care to tackle this problem of Oil Commodity Speculater's fleecing American's AGAIN

You should know by now Rick that story is just not sexy enough! ;o)

Notice the right wing nitwits shifting into overdrive,with their chattering points that this is ALL OBAMA's fault?

When the cold hard facts are, it's Wall Street who's bending us over again!

I hope the SC doesn't fast track this case. It would be much better for the process to follow its course with the SC issuing its opinion next year during the election, say late June. They will likely find the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Then our so-called constitutional law professor President will have to explain why he supported and signed an unconstitutional law.

Feisty:

I just put my hazmat suit on. Things are not going exactly the way the GOP/TP had figured they would.

More likely than not, the appellate courts will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional and the SC will choose not to hear the case. The SC really does prefer not to get involved in what is essentially political cases.

If they find that the law is unconstitutional, you will find the next fights over the mandate that everyone over 65 be in Medicare. How it can be stated that one is unconstitutional, yet the other is not does not make sense.

Saudi Arabia?

Well they're livid with Obama. Iran, Egypt, Bahrain/Iran, etc. I know you guys have no clue what is going on ...... oh well.

Speculators?

What is there is speculate about except how Obama has destroyed our energy industry and the effect that has on prices?

Obama wants high gas prices, Chu is even on record wanting to get it to $8 a gallon. They need it to promote the green dreams. What is new?

It is the liberal agenda. There will be a bigger push to buy those GE wind turbines made in China, those GE solar panels, all those GE charging stations for the GM Volt.

Obama and GE will do great, right. And it will help wipe out the middle class - they will be equal to the poor. That's fair, right?

This is Obama's agenda, he is accomplishing what he wants - why aren't you guys cheering Obama?

bob - It is really curious to me how when Bush was in office and gas prices went up it was his fault. Now when we have a liberal President who has stated in the past that he wouldn't mind seeing gas prices go up, we are told he has nothing to do with it. You are exactly right about president Obama and GE.

This article states that the Justice Department doesn't want the fast track approach to the Supreme Court. I wish they would ask for it and get this health care debate over with. If both sides requested the court to fast track it I believe they would take it now.

bob and joe - earlier this morning the main economics advisor for the WH (goolsbe) responded to S&P's rating America as negative with a 1 in 3 chance of the US losing its AAA rating within two years.

Goolsbe also expressed the WH opinion that obama understands that a bipartisan effort is required. Strange, when I listened to obamas speech last week I didn't see anything that he said as being willing to come to a bipartisan agreement. Just more of the "same ol', same ol'" "It will be my way or the highway"

The real question is "Why isn't Justice Thomas serving time with Wesley Snipes?"

Clarence Thomas and his wife VIrginia are tax cheats. Plain and simple.

Now there.

Rick,Ky you say you know this thread is about the Supremes, I believe the Supremes were an all girl singing group in the 60' I guess you aren't that informed.

And Sheila, MD how come you don't mention Charlie Rangle or do you just go after Conservatives/Republicans?

Now there!

Drive-by-observer you say that it's never reported about the speculators, well you are either misinformed or ignorant. O'Reilly on FOX always reports about the speculators, Oh, I forgot I'm the only registered democrat that watches FOX.

I guess its not as important as the Republicans think it is.........uh oh.............may the mandate is constitutional.....oh my !!!

Bob-1805084,

Rant much? ALL nonsense, at best! Grow up and get educated, you may even enjoy knowing what your talking about!

Umm, Feisty. It's actually Obama and Democrats who have been on the hook with Wall Street and the bankers. it's true Wall Street was not happy with obama for a few minutes but why do you think he brought Bill Daley on board? Why do you think some of the big financial players have been having strategy sessions regarding Obama's campaign? Going back to Clinton, watch the revolving door and see who comes and goes in 2 Democratic administrations. Yep, you got it. Federal reserve officials, bankers, and Wall Street millionaires. Dems love to obfuscate and deflect by claiming republicans are beholden to big business and oil and there is truth to that. But, Democrats and Obama are hardly virginal in their relationship to Wall Street and bankers. That's why there is less talk of financial reform, campaign finance reform, and breaking up the banks in the last 6 months. No big surprise there since the campaign season is getting into gear.

If they find that the law is unconstitutional, you will find the next fights over the mandate that everyone over 65 be in Medicare. How it can be stated that one is unconstitutional, yet the other is not does not make sense.

________________________________

There is NO REQUIREMENT that everyone over 65 be in Medicare. Problem solved.

joe in albany there is a mandate that everyone have insurance problem not solved!

So what if they vote on it and strike it down? Universal Healthcare is the answer. Both socially and financially. Anyone running on Universal Healthcare, like Medicare for all as a tax, will get my vote. It will save Medicare and Medicaide and will save our budget. Insurance companies can go back to their coverage of the rich and gimmicks.

annabanana if you want socialized medicine you should move to Cuba, Russia or some other commie country it didn't work there it will ruin us if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the law.

What I find so funny is that the Repubs themselves are the ones who DEMANDED that the whole Mandate to Purchase Insurance be included in the HCR to begin with. If it is, now, by their definition Unconstitutional, then why did they include it to begin with. Oh Yeah, to sabotage the entire bill from the beginning.

If the Mandate is Unconstitutional then I guess we will just have to replace it with a Single Payer system and allow the insurance companies to go flat broke, like they should. The insurance corporations have destroyed the lives of tens of millions of people and have been directly the cause of millions of deaths and are the leading cause of increases in the cost of medical care.

Time to put the medical insurance corps on the Marie Antoinette diet: Let them eat cake and instantly lose 10-15 lbs!

The state of Vermont is taking the President's challenge that if states have a better idea on how to reform health care, they should go for it. Guess what, it's single-payer, state government run health insurance. Cheers to Vermont!

The TeaPublicans demanded that everyone be mandated to be covered so that they would be able to challenge the constitutionality of the law. That way they could just kill the law in the SC.

Kind of like when Bush 43 demanded a recount, then took it to the SC to make sure a recount didn't happen.

Kind of like when Bush 43 demanded a recount, then took it to the SC to make sure a recount didn't happen.

________________________________________________________

Typical stupid lefty liberal nonsense: When the facts are not on your side, just make up some new facts that ARE on your side.

The recount was demanded by Dem Al Gore, not Bush. And Bush actually won FLA. That's not me saying that, it's the NY Times below. Since it is the NYT, lefty liberals a required to consider it the absolute truth!!!

Moron.

November 12, 2001
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

scramblebrain,

Refute something.

Sheila, MD.....and you failed to mention the 41 Obama White House aides, in addition to elected representatives and other federal employees (NOTE: Democrats and Republicans), who HAVE FAILED TO PAY THEIR BACK TAXES:

• 41 of Obama’s White House aides owe $ 831,055. His aides must look good in the newly decorated Oval office.
• On Capitol Hill, 638 workers owe $ 9,300,000.
• In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe $ 6,524,892.
• In the Senate, 217 owe $ 2,774,836.
• In the Treasury Department, 1,204 owe $ 7,670,814.
• In the Labor Department, 463 owe $ 7,481,463.
• In the Justice Department 1,971 employees still owe $ 14,350,152.
• In the Homeland Security Department, 4,856 people who owe a whopping total of $ 37,012,174.
• In the Federal Reserve System's board of governors, 81 employees owe $ 1,076,733.
• Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

So, it is apparent the Attorney General, and the White House, will block any attempt to get the unconstitutional (my take) Mandated Universal Health Care legislation before the Supreme Court since their associates are beyond Federal Laws.

That's over 78 million dollars and those are only government workers. Hey Obama how about collecting those back taxes and pay down the debt.

aka, How are you going to feel when the public totally repudiates the Repubs/TPers in this election cycle, leaving the Dems with a non-filibusterable majority in the Senate, a huge majority in the House and the Presidency solidly in Obama's hands??? How loud will you scream then?? That is where it is heading, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Dems with a non-filibusterable majority in the Senate, a huge majority in the House and the Presidency solidly in Obama's hands

__________________________________________________________

Good luck with that dream. The Republican's need to win a net of 4 seats to win control of the Senate. The Dems are defending 23 seats to the Republican's 10 in 2012. Barry looks like it's his to lose. But if there is a Republican Congress , he may wish he hadn't run.

BTW if the Republican's do take the Senate, I am looking forward to the Dem minority not being "obstructionists" with the filibuster.

Yeah, right. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jon - There most certainly is a requirement that seniors be in Medicare at 65. As a matter of fact when someone turns 65 they are automatically enrolled into Medicare Part A and sent a Medicare card. A person over 65 who would prefer to have a private individual plan will find that that plan will not pay first and they will require their insured to enroll in Medicare and submit to Medicare first. No one over 65 has a private plan that doesn't go through Medicare first. That's the law. Sorry but you are wrong. I am a SHIP counselor in NJ and I know what the law is.

laurie-480643 I believe your response is to Joe in Albany who said there is no requirement for people over65 to have Medicare. My point was that the new health care law required everyone to have insurance.

Sorry Jon - In my haste to refute Joe's statement I got confused on the name....my bad!!! It's a shame there's such ignorance out there as to the facts about Medicare. Medicare is a mandate and if the Suprreme Court were to mandate the requirement for participation in the new health care law unconstitutional, they would have to find Medicare unconstitutional as well and talk about a revolt. Legislators phones all over the country would be ringing off the hook. I have already had in my office this morning three calls from seniors concerned the the "voucher" system Republicans want to install for the under 55's is meant for current seniors. They're terrified and angry and calling for clarification. Republicans have opend Pandora's box and now they will have to pay that price.

laurie: as well they should. How many phone calls would they get if they decided to increase tax rates on corporations and individuals earning over $1million ?

President Reagan proved you can raise taxes, you just have to say your cutting negative revenue enhancements.

Jon Exner - there are many democratic countries that have universal health care, not just "commie countries).

TO: bob-1805084 who wrote:

“Saudi Arabia?

Well they're livid with Obama. Iran, Egypt, Bahrain/Iran, etc. I know you guys have no clue what is going on ...... oh well.”

^^^^^^^^^^^

Why don’t you tell us why you think Saudi Arabia or any other country you mentioned WOULD be “livid” with President Obama, and while you’re at it, why don’t you explain why former president Bush and former vp Dick Cheney aren’t doing anything to lower gas prices.

As you well know, former president GWB and his boy Dick still have control over the oil fields in Iraq as well as Iraqi Oil Revenues, and yet THEY seem to love the higher gas prices enough to DO NOTHING to keep prices low, even though it is within their power to do so.

Care to explain, or do you just like tossing out insults where you have no facts?

Now it's not just paid trolls on Newsvine - they're in the House of Representatives, too.

There's an underhanded attempt going on to make it a one-party system while CLAIMING it's still a 2-party system.

I discovered this outrageous abuse of political power by the GOP while looking up the recent OFFICIAL House Energy Committee report on fracking. On going to the OFFICIAL U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee website, I got this page:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/

Frankly, I thought I had mis-searched and accidentally ended up at a Republican National Committee stealth page. The entire thing is filled with partisan flame-throwing rhetoric like "Obamacare Imposes New Tax on Over-the-Counter Medication" and "EPA Admits They Do Not Account For Jobs When Regulating".

NOWHERE on the site was this OFFICIAL report on fracking mentioned, even though it was ordered and paid for by this committee. And under "Committee Actions", there's only a link to "Republican Views".

It even has a Republican Twitter feed on the right side. And a new tab at the top to "GOP Resources" that leads places like the Republican Conference.

This is RIDICULOUS! The House Energy and Commerce Committee does NOT belong to the Republican Party, even though it's now chaired by Fred Upton, former staffer for Ronald Reagan. That committee AND their webpage belong to the AMERICAN PEOPLE - all of us.

So much for the GOP's tattered costume of "working for all Americans" and bipartisanship, eh?

And just so none of you apologists say, "Well, the Democrats do it too", here is the same OFFICIAL committee page from the last Congress, when it was chaired by Senator Henry Waxman:

http://energycommerce.house.gov">http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20101015005200/http://energycommerce.house.gov

Notice that under "Committee Actions" there is NO link to "Democrat Views". Also no Democrat Twitter feed, or links to Democrat Resources. And no flame-throwing anywhere.

On further investigation, I have found that nearly all the House committee webpages have been co-opted by the RNC P.R. machine - the flagrancy seems to depend on the level of partisanship of the chairman.

It was NOT this way before, folks.

Yeah, it's time to take our country back, all right.

heartlight3 you are correct there are many democratic countries with national health care and their economies are in shambles and they are cutting programs to get the economies corrected before it is too late. We in the United States of America however are going in the wrong direction.

ldo

Sheila, MD.....and you failed to mention the 41 Obama White House aides, in addition to elected representatives and other federal employees (NOTE: Democrats and Republicans), who HAVE FAILED TO PAY THEIR BACK TAXES:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ido, yet, it is the Republicans that given every chance have cut funds to the IRS to hamper their ability to pursue tax cheats.

Laurie: You are completely incorrect on several fronts.

The unconstitutional argument about ObamaCare is as follows: The requirement draws its athority from the Interstate Commerce clasue. Congress has the athority to regulate interstate commerce. Never has an individual been REQUIRED to participate in interstate commerce. Therefore Congress does not have the athority (legally there is no difference between CONGRESS requireing an individual to purchase Health Insurance, and Congress requireing that same person to purchase a Florida orange). That is the constitutional argument, and it is a VERY persuasive one.

Medicare: No one is required to PURCHASE Medicare. At age 65 an individual is "given" Medicare part A. Contrary to your earlier statement, Medicare is a secondary payor when an individual has other standard private health insurance (i.e. group Health Insurance at work). I am not 100% sure where Medicaid is concerned, however I think Medicare is also considered secondary to Medicaid.

The key difference between Medicare and ObamaCare is the requirement to purchase.

BTW: I work in the Medicare industry, I am quite familiar with the Coordination of Benifits process.

This entire issue is alot more complex than the stupid sound bites that virtually every politician and PAC is feeding the American public. How about you stop spouting nonsense and bother to learn the facts.

You forgot to add the bashing of Obama too. You know the he's not a citizen, he's a Muslim, he's the worst Pres... They just love to bash him anytime the ACA is mentioned. Were is Joe the Barry Basher at anyway? Probably still ranting over on First Thoughts!

drip101 it's not socialist it's just unconstitutional!

devie I'll bet you used to bash Bush whenever you got the chance just on other subjects.

Love the birther stuff, even though its been disproven ad nauseum.

Make the case that a person can go their entire life without health care and I'll say the mandate is unconstitutional.

Ericblahblahblah don't believe you know how to determine whether a law is constitutional, it certainly is't the way you just described.

Jon, I sure did without having to make stuff up like you and your GOTP buddies do! If you want to protect GW go ahead. Bush was a sorry excuse for a President.

devie, for your information I have been a registered democrat since 1972 just not a dumb one like you.

Jon-If it is indeed unconstitutional to make everyone pay something for health care, is it constitutional, in your opinion, to force hospitals to care for the uninsured or should they have the right to let the uninsured die in the parking lot? Constitutional or not, everyone should pay something for their healthcare. As a taxpayer, I am tired of paying for those that choose to not have any insurance. It is commendable that you don't mind paying for their care.

clemkadiddlehopper the ones I am tired of paying for are the ones who come to this country illegally those are the ones that the supreme court decided that they could not be turned away from hospitals.

If you believe you are going to make people who have no money pay for health insurance the joke is you, oh I meant to say the joke is on you.

Can you please cite the case where this was mandated by the SC?

To those of you who are complaining about paying for the uninsured out of your taxes: It's called CHARITY and it begins at home. Want to complain then let's take on foreign aid.

Clem - Requiring a non-federally owned hospital to treat all regardless of ability to pay is unconstitutional. May be good policy but it is unconstitutional. What is not unconstitutional is telling hospitals that the Fed gov. will reimburse them for costs incurred for treating those that cannot pay. To think otherwise would imply that you are okay with the gov telling a restaurant that they must feed the hungry regardless of their ability to pay or telling a hotel that they must provide rooms to the homeless regardless of their ability to pay. After all, together will health-care, having enough food and shelter are "rights", are they not?

Actully Lyle, all hospitals are required to make sure all persons coming into them are stable before they can transfer an uninsured patient to another facility for additional treatment. See the EMTALA.

Mandate for everyone to buy medical insurance will go away and our President knows this. It's what he had to do behind closed doors to get a bill passed. Single payer - Universal health care is where this country needs to go to make it damn affordable for citizens/employers to get coverage. If you don't have a job your case worker needs to be on your a-ss till you get one. Flippin burgers for awhile or what ever. Private for profit HC companies will be history. All facets/costs of health care will be revised. New doctors will be introduced into the system with fed funding for schooling. It will be a process for the good or our future, citizens and economy. Senior citizen benefits will go unchanged if not better. No vouchers.

strmz: That is some of the most ignorant drivel I have read herre, and that is saying much. The fact that anyone (as you obviously do) could possibly believe it scares the hell out of me. The type of society you obviously envision has been tried numerous times in the history of the human race and IT HAS FAILED misirably every single time resulting in societal destruction. The "from each according to his means to each according to his needs" political philosophy looks REALLy nice on paper, BUT IT CAN NEVER WORK IN REALITY. That is the problem with so many of the social programs that "libs" / "progeressives" love so much. They do not work in reality. Please, please, join the rest of us by living in the real world.

Adam, Single-Payer has NOT failed in the Nations that use it, and the ONLY reason that it has ANY problems is because the people that would profit most from it failing keep sabotaging it. That and the only reason that many of those Nations are having ANY financial problems presently is because their banks have stabbed them in the back along with the rest of the world earlier in the decade by going bankrupt and blackmailing their nations to bail them out, resulting in the entire austerity programs which break the Nations but enrich the banks. It is time to TOTALLY revamp the entire International Banking/Credit Rating system and, frankly, hang a BUNCH of the very thieves that brought this about! Financial crimes above $100K should be considered Capitol Crimes and NOT given the slap on the wrist that they presently get.

Too big to fail also means too big to worry about ethics, which is the biggest reason to dismantle them!

patrick salt lake city, they need to fast track this issue because it is one of the biggest issues on the table as of right now. There are 26 states that have filed law suites against this law claiming it is Unconstitutional and president obama and the rest of the ultra liberals know it.

If they were as sure of the constitutionality of the law they would welcome the challenge and the fast track process to get it done and out of the way. But instead the supposed great uniter is more than happy to use this as a campaign issue in 2012 against anyone who opposes the law.

So Jon are you a Constitutional Scholar? Thanks but I'll wait for the SCOTUS to rule on this one. The ACA hasn't even gone into full effect yet. People are still getting those comforting letters questioning their eligibility with those you know preexisting conditions crap.

Scary how the government might want people to have medical coverage. How shameful! Those bastards! I mean really what are they trying too do the right thing?

We did not need a bill over 2000 pages to make it illegal to deny insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

The government is made up of people are elected to represent the American Citizens in accordance with the Constitution. Since you pretend to be a constitutional scholar yourself tell me just where in the Constitution is it written that our elected representatives can mandate that everyone has to get insurance or face a fine.

The republicans want it fast tracked because they know that the regular appeals process might rule against them and they might not have a reason for it to go to the Supreme Court. If it is fast tracked they skip the part that is uncertain to them and are banking on conservative activist judges to rule in their favor.

Nice word play there Jon. I have never said I was a scholar of any sort but I can read. How about we use the preamble for starters:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

I like the part about promoting the general Welfare. How about you?

Jon Exner, anyone can file a lawsuit. It's especially easy if you already have a full-time legal staff, like a state does. The difficulty lies in winning your suit.

Or, even getting it to trial. How many of your 26 have already been tossed out for one reason or another? And, how many of them were ever even separate suits to begin with?

Patrick: They're not going to fast track it because they're not going to overturn it. HCR has been decades in the making, it's just that Republicans are jealous that THEY couldn't get it done, but then Republicans can't get anything done because they've betrayed the public trust in order to make themselves rich under the Bush Administration.

No American in their right mind would trust Republicans with even one penny.

Patrick Salt Lake City - They need to get in fast tracked, before we boot them out of office.

Are you referring to the Supreme Court? (lol)

Did you learn that bit of Constitutional analysis at a Tea Party rally?

And with the usual, highly insightful nanner nanner boo boo comments! Nice to know there's always a group you can count on to deliver, 'eh Jolly?

Nice post IR. But one never knows with the "activist" conservative judges who are in the majority at SCOTUS. It sure does look like a nonstarter but they did rule in favor of Citizens United over the FEC. Now that should have never even seen the light of day! We sure do live in strange times. Strange days indeed.

Main thing that I'm trying to get folks to realize devie is the reason that they're trying to fast track this deal. If they go through the appeals process they way they should then this case won't make it to the Supreme Court and they know it. Right now it's just another Strawman talking point produced for fools by fools

It should be called Supreme Court (R) Of The United States, SCROTUS, after the citizens (read corporations in 1984 speak) united (divisive in 1984 speak) split decision (read steaming pile). Activist judges of the worst sort.

IR, Agreed!

manapp99 you ask where Feisty Red Head come down in that debate, I'll tell you she came right down on her head that's why she never makes any sense.

yeah thanks for $4 a gallon gas and 9% unemployment...heckuva job barry!

Rudy Gonzalez there are two ways to view that light at the end of the tunnel.

First it is exactly as described a light at the end of a tunnel.

Second a train is about to run us over.

I think the latter is the correct description.

Joe, how can you blame Obama for gas prices? Does he or anyone in the US set oil prices? No, but speculators do effect the price of crude.

Maybe instead of talking sh!t, you should be looking at the real reason for increasing gas/oil prices and try to make a change by fighting to have the regulation that used to be in place so that there could be no speculation on oil futures put back into place. That way wall street could not effect oil/gas prices.

That would be a better use of your time.

joe...

...Obama doesn't regulate gas OR oil prices...and unemployment is at 8.8%...

Mickey you live in NY and fanticy land all at once! president obama may not controll prices but he does control the drilling or non drilling of oil, and natural gas and the true unemployment number is way beyond 8.8%

Joe: you forgot undewater mortgages, record level national Debt, looming tax increases, recession, exportation of US jobs to name a few. And that the Obamacare is too expensive and unsustainable besided being unconstitutional!

Jon:

[president obama may not controll prices but he does control the drilling or non drilling of oil, and natural gas and ]

The "drilling or non drilling of oil, and natural gas", as you put it, is not what's driving prices higher...speculation (as always) and unrest in the Mid East is driving prices higher. If you started drilling yesterday, you wouldn't see a drop of gasoline for 5 to 10 years.

As far as your claim that "the true unemployment number is way beyond 8.8%", I would truly like you to cite your source for information please, because as of last month the unemployment rate was placed at 8.8%. Here are direct quotes from the websites I linked below:

"Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 216,000 in March, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The unemployment rate in the United States was last reported at 8.8 percent in March of 2011."

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD

Gas prices are a direct result of the deficit spending in the US. Gas isn't any more expensive, the dollar is just worth less. Quit trying to point fingers at some amorphous conspiracy of "rich" people, and try using common sense. Please quit trying to use talking head's sound bites to explain complicated issues.

Correcting 30 years of Congressional mismanagement will not be easy or painless, but it does have a very simple beginning point, A Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget.

1. Constitutionally require the Federal budget (except in time of declared war) to be the lesser of the previous year's actual tax receipt or the GAO's projection of the current year's tax receipt.
2. Require that any excess be applied to the national debt (there should usually be one because of inflation causing a year-to-year increase in tax revenue even with no alteration to the tax code).
3. If a deficit is accrued in Time of War, at the conclusion of that period, the Federal Budget must contain a minimum of a 1/20th repayment of the principal of the debt.
4. If congress is unable or unwilling to pass a budget, the previous year's budget will be used.
5. In the event of a "default budget" if the total size of the allowable budget is less than the previous year, reductions will be made across the board (if the budget is 10% smaller, everything is reduced 10%). If the previous years budget is smaller than the currently allowabel budget, no increase will be allowed.

We can (and will) argue over what to spend money on. We can (and will) argue over how much and what to tax. But, we must find a way to control how much Congress is allowed to spend. Even with no other reforms, this would eventually get the country out of debt, and prevent the current situation from ever occurring again.

If someone can think of a reason why the above is not a good idea, I'd love to hear it.

Increase in gas prices are ONLY controlled by greedy speculators and oil companies fleecing the rest of us on the very slimmest of excuses. It has NOTHING to do with deficit spending, so that dog won't hunt!

As far as your proposal, the first is not realistic because our population grows every year, and so the expenditures do as well, and on top of that, it could be too easily short-circuited by just keeping us in a state of war. All that we need to do to ensure constant, ample revenue is to tax Wall Street. Just a 5% tax on the Stock Markets would bring in an average of some $24 TRILLION/year. It is not that the money is not there, this nation is NOT broke, it is just tied up in paper instruments that do the general economy absolutely no good and keep the wealth concentrated amongst the top 2%. Tax that and there is ample revenue to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure (which would help the unemployment problem handily) pay off our National Debt in a single year (which the banks would scream about because they would not get their bloated interest payments) and would completely fund all of our Govt. programs quite easily.

It is NOT that we have a spending problem, which is actually DOWN as a % of GDP compared to past decades, it is a matter of not enough revenue, and That is mostly because of tax breaks, tax loopholes and corporate welfare. Get rid of the tax breaks, tax loopholes and giveaways to corporations, raise the tax rates on capital gains and increase the tax rates on those making more than $400k/yr back to at LEAST Reagan Era levels and the deficit would miraculously disappear. But, that is totally inimical to the entire Repub strategy of sabotaging the tax code/revenue process so that they can destroy all of the things on their pet peeve list, ya know, the very ones that the Ryan Plan sets up for cuts or privatization because their Big Money Backers prefer to be totally unfettered in their greed, no matter What happens to the rest of us. They are trying desperately to strangle the Govt in the bathtub, and now that they have actually laid their entire program out on the table, the greater majority of the populace is falling away from them at an ever accelerating pace. Just like in Wisconsin, there are a LOT of people who voted for the Repubs/TPers that truly wish that they could have a redo on that vote. I know, I live in Wisconsin and hear it all the time. Many of the older Repubs that I have at times held friendly arguments about politics over a beer with have come up to me and told me that I had it right on a LOT of points (not all) and that they truly wished that they had not voted for the idiot in the Guv's Mansion, and they they had a much clearer idea, now, of what I had been talking about all along.

Bhonest: You are about as factually wrong as it is possible to be. Normally I would go through your post point by point, but it is a waste of my time.

Slapping your 5% tax on wall street is about the stupidist thing I have ever heard.

One other

I will just leave you with one fact of note.

In 2008 (the last year that the IRS has publicaly released data for) the top 1% or earners in America earned ~1.3 trillion. Even if they were taxed at 100% the country would have run a deficit. We have a spending problem. thing, your statement about why my idea (and it is mine, I've been thinking about it for a while, and that is why I solicited input) wouldn't work I don't believe makes it a non-starter. Personally I think that keeping government expendature behind the inflation curve instead of in front of it is a good thing. I think that it also needs a mechanism to address "emergency spending legislation" possibly either by setting up a savings mechanism for the government, or requireing a supermajority of congress to pass deficit spending in non-wartime. BTW I used the term Declared War intentionally. There really haven't been very many of them in our nation's history. The last one was WWII.

I really don't like the online editor that this site uses... Don't know if it is the site, or my system but... bleh I think I will start just writing them in word and pasting into the silly window.

Here is the final version of my post:

Bhonest: CONGRATULATIONS, you have managed to surpass STMZ. You are about as factually wrong as it is possible to be. Normally I would go through your post point by point, but it is a waste of my time. Slapping your 5% tax on Wall Street is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You do realize that Wall St dollars are the total VALUE of a company, not their profits? Does the dot com bubble sound familiar? I will just leave you with one fact of note.

In 2008 (the last year that the IRS has publically released data for) the top 1% or earners in America earned ~1.3 trillion. Even if they were taxed at 100% the country would have run a deficit. We have a spending problem.

Your statement about why my idea (and it is mine, I've been thinking about it for a while, and that is why I solicited input) wouldn't work, I don't believe makes it a non-starter. Personally I think that keeping government expenditure behind the inflation curve instead of in front of it is a good thing.

I think that it also needs a mechanism to address "emergency spending legislation" possibly either by setting up a savings mechanism for the government that could be tapped, and/or requiring a supermajority of congress to pass deficit spending in non-wartime. BTW I used the term Declared War intentionally. There really haven't been very many of them in our nation's history. The last one was WWII, and it really isn’t possible to maintain a declared war indefinitely. Congress has to declare it, Congress has to maintain it, and Congress looses power to the Executive branch while it is ongoing. The framers of our Constitution were not stupid.

81% of people like this law! Really 81% of people with one eye and 3 toes on each foot?

Diane,just can't get over those hanging chads can you?

Diane, spoken like a true Lefty.

There are several good reasons to fast track this law. 1) The government is spending to much money on a law that might not be constitutional, so let's resolve it now. 2) Businesses, especially small businesses, can not plan ahead to hiring new employees or expand business until this is settled. 3) Get the subject of the law out of politics and into the courts now, everyone knows, even the Supreme Court, that this will be settled by the Supreme Court.

diane from las vegas the Constitutionality of any law is not decided by the % of people who like or dislike a given law.

It is decided by reading and understanding the meaning of the Constitution and how it would fit or not fit the writings of the Constitution.

If a law is deemed Constitutional or Unconstitutional against the beliefs of the majority of the American Citizens there are ways to change the Constitution; either by taking up arms as Jefferson had written or by the process of changing the Constitution by holding a Constitutional Convention.

Now, just exactly where do you come up with the 81% in favor of the law, you been smoking something illegal?

It is interesting that when asked if they like Obamacare the people say no. When asked about specific parts of the health reform act they say yes. So that 81% could be true. There is so much misleading information and people hear Obamacare is bad, so that is what they go with, but like I said when given the specifics the people actually like it.

Andie469 you are absolutely correct! You know what they say you can take a poll and get whatever numbers you want depending on how you ask the question. Also, you know what they say about figures lie and liar's figure!

It's unfortunate that the Dems included the "must buy" provision in the Health Care bill. In order to get just one Repub to vote for the bill, the Dems accepted that one concession and added "must buy". They got the vote, but it turned out to contain a "poison pill". The Repub "turncoat" turned out to be a double agent. If the bill had contained the "public option", then I for one would let the "must buy" provision die without debate. But the good from this bill cannot be overlooked.

The Democrats had to include the "must buy" part of the bill, because everyone needs to buy into the risk pool for coverage to be affordable. None of you know how health insurance works at all, least of all the Republicans that were somehow elected into Congress. Republicans refused to do away with insurance companies or to come up with their own reasonable alternative, so guess what? "Must buy" had to happen, and you Republicans ASKED FOR IT.

Majority rules.

Ditto!

Jim you may have more corretly starter by saying "Ex president BUSH thank you for a job well done and rasing the debt ceiling only 5 times during your administation, and thanks for not including the wars in the defict that would really made you look bad". Jim you republicans never accept blame for anything.

It's also funny how the Republicans/Bush supporters were screaming "Yeehaw" in unison as they dropped the bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq over non-existent WMDs, and suddenly now they want "out".

Typical.

Neither is the inane, illegal Health Care Law.

[Neither is the inane, illegal Health Care Law.]

Best get used to it...Health Care Reform is here to stay..but hey...even YOU might need it someday...

If it actually contained one single thing that "reformed health care" we would have something to talk about. If it contained a single thing to reduce the cost of health care in this country, we could have something to talk about. It does not. I have not seen, or heard of anything in this law directly related to health care.

Health Care is NOT the same thing as Health Insurance. The only thing this law attempts to do is make it impossible for a private company to continue to offer health insurance long term.

As for the complaining about how the nasty republicans forced tehm to add the purchase requirement, that only shows just how ignorant you are. With congress outlawing pre-existing conditions, if there was no requirement to purchase, Health Insurance could NOT continue to exist. Noone would buy it until they were riding in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital.

In fact, that reason was cited in at least one of the court rulings (I am thinking South Carolina for some reason, but I could be wrong) upholding the law, which in and of itself shows how faulty the ruling is. They did not rule as to if it violates the constitution, they ruled that the provision was needed. Talk about a judge failing to do their job.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This law is NOTHING but good intentions, and EXTREMELY poor implementation.

dianefromlasvegas what about the way president obama acted at the state of the union? Do you truly believe that justice Roberts is the only one that is involved in the political 'right' or 'left'. Sandra Day O'connor was very active in left wing politics. The list could go on but we agree on one thing it is wrong for either side to be that involved in politics.

The Supreme Court justices should put their personal and political views aside and base their decisions on the writtings and the meaning of the Constitution as the Founding fathers intended them to be.

If the decisions by the Supreme court is not accepted by the majority of the American Citizens they can force a Constitutional Convention through their elected representatives and change the constitution.

Over our history we have added or deleted Amendments to the Constitution many times, however it seems that we now just sit back and let the Supreme Court Justices change rather than interpret the Constitution of the United States of America. I guess this is what they are now being taught in our schools today.

Hey Jon,

Ever hear of the "Federalist Society"? No politics there huh. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, all bought and paid for by Scaife, Koch, Carthage,Earhart, Bradley ad nauseum.

Jon, I believe you must be smoking something Sandra Day O'Connor was not on the side of the left, but she is a active supporter of the right. And that is a problem when she is on and appeals court making decisions that help the right, what it's called is unethical.

Ed I stand corrected I was mixing her with the other female justice, who recently retired and her name escapes me right now.

As a follow:

Read the Declaration of Independence and other works on Jeffersonian Democracy before you start quotiong him. Based on his writings he would hated almost everything the far right and religious conservative movement is doing today.

Ira Laphin to yourself; I did not want to write a book, just tried to use a little common sense without laying blame on either side of the isle. But since you are trying to play the blame game the dumocrats controlled the president and both houses of congress the past two years.

And at the risk of repeating myself I have been a registered democrat since 1972, but have seen a real change in the democratic party over the years not to my liking. I know, I know you don't much care what I like! But we still live in a free speech country so all I can say is I will defend your right to be wrong!

So you think that Jefferson would approve of the law that all people in this country has the right to healthcare provided for by the government which by the way in this discussion the government giving everyone healthcare would be the chief magistrate.

Jon, Jon, Jon. The Republican controlled the White House for 8 long years. Obama 2 years. Congress is once again contolled by Republicans that are so far right they would make Goldwater and Regan look liberal. I didn't lay blame on anyone. I was simply correcting the "facts" and inaccurate quotes you posted, If you want to quote Jefferson. quote the whole saying and not the parts that suit you.

No the chief magistrate is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and not the POTUS.

As for Jefferason , who wrote the Declaration and assisted in the writing of the Constitution...

First, there's this mandate in the Constitution to "Promote the General Welfare". To me that means keeping all citizens, rich or poor, safe, free and healthy.

Jefferson also wrote:

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new
principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things
which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense
of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to
justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither
aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any
particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the
American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called
for by the occasion.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

Yep, I do think he would be for Universal healthcare for all Americans.

Ira Laphin at you, if you knew so much about the constitution you would know that the congress is not controlled by the Republicans they control the House of Representatives which is only half of the Congress the other half of Congress is the Senate. Take your own advise and re-read the Constitution of the United States of America specifically Article. 1, Section 2.

I'll make it easy on you it says:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I find it hard to understand when I hear elected representatives and so called knowledgeable news people refer to a Senator as Senator and a member of the House of Represenative refered to as congressman or congresswomen when both Senators and Representatives are actually Congress people.

Gottcha.

Wow...you have no problem with me saying that the white House was controlled by Republicans for the 8 years prior to Obama or the 12 years before Clinton. You have no problem when I correct you on inaccurate history or misstated facts or quotes, especially Jefferson. You have no response when I quote the Constitution to answer your direct question. No problem at all with all these things. I said Republicans now control Congress and I got a gottcha. You're right, they only control the House. Yep, you got me. Sorry, I've run out of the time I allocate each day for talking to idiots.

Yes, Ira, you're right - Jefferson would have supported universal health care.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has been reading the Tea Party's CliffsNotes version of the Constitution.

good luck, upstate.

OOPS, Sorry about that IRA, You were posting Jon Exner's backwards comment,,,,,,,,,And to think, Here I was thinking YOU were a total idiot for thinking Republics were controlled by Democrats ;)

It took them 1/2 dozen tries just to find 2 Republican Judges who would go along with them on it, If it comes down to a strictly "law" decision Republicans will be weeping huge crocodile tears for years to come just like they were when SS passed and when Medicare passed (But you'll never see one turn it down)

They want to hurry up and get to the Supreme Court before Obama gets another appointment. I mean, where would they be if Roberts or Alito or Thomas or Scalia dropped dead?

Just as dead, I think.