Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!


There can't be any economic activity if government regulations, taxes and other political coercive wealth redistribution schemes are disincentivising productivity: wealth creation.
Most of the wealth being redistributed by all the governmental actions has been going to the top percentile assest class.

While other states are busy fighting over and spreading existing wealth, Texas is maximizing its productivity attracting and harnessing human and investment capital creating new wealth. Productivity is wealth, and wealth by this definition is not a finite resource, so Texas prosperity has no limits . This is also why this insane Keynesian theory of dumping printed/borrowed money into an economy in the hopes of somehow creating economic prosperity is economic sodomy.
Where did most of the printed/borrowed money go to?
Productivity isn't wealth,someone can be productive and dig a hole,and another productive person can fill it,and not much wealth is created from the activity[unless it's done as performance art?].Wealth is created utilizing available resources,adding value to them,and having the finished result serve any kind of useful-to someone- function.

There are limits to almost everything.See this for example:
Oil Limits, Recession, and Bumping Against the Growth Ceiling
Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 17, 2011
More at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8268

Wealth redistribution has absolutely no multiplier effect, because government is notoriously inefficient at reallocating capital. Government cannot create wealth without first taking it from someplace else. So socialism is always a zero-sum game, whereas free market capitalism is not because productivity is not a finite resources.

Problem is the free market doesn't remain free,participants learn how to game a no holds barred economic system to their advantage.Human nature trumps ideology.Is trading derivatives productive,wouldn't the capital involved be better used elsewhere.
The" free market" benefits from reallocated capital when it's used to benfit everyone like the pre-internet USPS which had to provide universal service,or the building of the interstate highway system.Sure mostly private capital built the railway system in the 1800's,but they had clear right of way provided by the U.S. military,use of government land,and cheap mostly immigrant labor to do the heavy lifting.Even so while the early investors made out like bandits,later investors were left holding the bag when the high cost of running a railroad caused many bankruptcies.Something similar happened in the 1990's with the companies who built the fiber optic network.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Hey scrimmage, here's a tiny sample of how efficient and effective government wealth redistribution is:

<IFRAME height=349 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pShicKqreGI" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

Your taxpaying dollars (your finite time and resources) hard at work!

No problem with overpaid CEO's?That must be the going rate for lifeguards in Newport Beach[what's the cost of living there?],isn't that the labor market in action?The community probably wanted professional lifeguards who stay on the job,instead of having to constantly hire people seasonally.
Joe a heads up, 2:00 into the video the hunky,shirtless African American body builder says "Canada here I come".
 
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Most of the wealth being redistributed by all the governmental actions has been going to the top percentile assest class.

You mean the ruling class and their politically-connected business cronies (GE, for example).

That's not free market, scrimmage -- just more evidence how horrible and corrupt government wealth redistribution is.

Say it with me:

SOCIALISM IS A ZERO-SUM GAME OF DIMINISHING RETURNS.

Always has been, always will be.

Where did most of the printed/borrowed money go to?

Same place the stimulus went -- into the toilet. The rest is sitting in banks rotting because nobody is stupid enough to invest in this hostile business environment.

Where is the incentive to produce if the government mandates you spread that production around for everyone?

Productivity isn't wealth,someone can be productive and dig a hole,and another productive person can fill it,and not much wealth is created from the activity[unless it's done as performance art?].

Well, nobody is going to dig a hole without demand for said action, so your explanation is silly. By productivity, you mean producing goods and services people demand using investment and human capital.

Wealth is created utilizing available resources,adding value to them,and having the finished result serve any kind of useful-to someone- function.

There are limits to almost everything.See this for example:
Oil Limits, Recession, and Bumping Against the Growth Ceiling
Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 17, 2011
More at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8268

Oh no! Not this crackpot "peak oil" stuff again! :doh1

Natural resources are not wealth, scrimmage. You can have all the oil in the world, if you don't have the means to extract it out of the ground, its worthless to you. It only becomes worth something once someone comes along with investment and human capital and digs it out of the ground -- productivity.

The people in Africa and the middle east would still be drinking their own piss and sleeping in mud huts were it not for our highly technically advanced, productive economies.

Problem is the free market doesn't remain free, participants learn how to game a no holds barred economic system to their advantage.

Right. They "community organize" and get the government to rig the game in order to steal people's wealth, because they don't have the ability and/or desire to acquire it themselves. What a great system!

Human nature trumps ideology.

See also: "Why central planning doesn't work."

The free market is a organic economic system based on human nature. The profit motive ("greed") and price signals are human nature. This isn't the case for any government entity because pro-government advocates believe money grows on trees -- literally. So the natural, predictable course for any government institution or bureaucracy is bankruptcy -- as Margaret Thatcher so aptly said, running out of other people's money.

Is trading derivatives productive, wouldn't the capital involved be better used elsewhere.

Who's capital and better used elsewhere according to whom? Be careful, your socialist tendencies are creeping in again.

The" free market" benefits from reallocated capital when it's used to benfit everyone like the pre-internet USPS which had to provide universal service,or the building of the interstate highway system.

Oh really?

First of all, the free market should NOT benefit "everyone", only those who CHOOSE to participate by making themselves PRODUCTIVE. The idle aren't PRODUCTIVE, and therefore become a drag on the entire system. Why should the idle benefit from the fruits of someone else's PRODUCTIVITY?
Oh, right...because we're a "compassionate" nation. :doh1 Call it what you want, its still sodomized economics that will never work, no matter hard the central planners try.

Btw, like every other government entity, the USPS is BROKE. Thanks for playing.

:+waving-5
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!


As cities, counties and states trim their workforces to align expenses with their tax revenues, then community tasks like maintaining parks will devolve to volunteer groups. Rather than pay 20 million people to sit at home doing nothing, why not engage them in their community, and get them back into the positive world of contributing and being valued?

Those collecting food stamps and Section 8 housing can also contribute, in proportion to the benefits they're accepting. Free anything is debilitating, and it's crazy to be giving tens of millions of people money to contribute nothing while the nation falls apart out of neglect.

Global Corporate America will only do and only go wherever it can reap staggering profits; that is its raison d'etre. Thus most of the real work of the nation is of zero interest to Global Corporate America and its politico toadies.

Here are the numbers. I have sourced these many times so look in my archives:

Corporate profits: $1.4 trillion, or 10% of GDP.

The Free Money programs: extended unemployment: $160 billion, SNAP food stamps: $60 billion, Section 8 housing vouchers: $10 billion, total around $230 billion, or 8.4% of annual Federal spending of $3.8 trillion, and less than 2% of GDP.

Let's be honest: it's easy to pay people to do nothing. Requiring people to be productive is fraught with challenges: liability issues, oversight, lack of training, and a thousand other problems.
It's easier to pay people to do nothing than give them an opportunity to contribute and improve their skills and social capital.

From[BTW a must read in full]:
Getting 20 Million Unemployed Back to Productive Work: Here's How (August 16, 2011)

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/20-million-unemployed-8-11.html
 
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

No problem with overpaid CEO's?

Overpaid according to whom? Unions? ACORN? "Community organizers" who have absolute no clue on how wealth is created (and destroyed)? Again, price signals as well as the profit motive will set the salary of the "overpaid CEO"...as well the "overpaid laborer".

No such restraints and guidelines exist within the government. There is no profit motive (profit is eeeeeeevil) and price signals, pffft...well, who needs those when government is an unlimited spigot that can spend other people's wealth accrued through political power.

Like I said, progressivism = sodomized economics. (Actually, more like sodomized reality!)

That must be the going rate for lifeguards in Newport Beach[what's the cost of living there?],isn't that the labor market in action?The community probably wanted professional lifeguards who stay on the job,instead of having to constantly hire people seasonally.

100K annually for a lifeguard is the "market rate" in Commiefornia? :LMAO

The insanity of progressivism of a nutshell.

And people wonder why Texas is thriving while Commiefornia is going broke! 2348ji23e

Oh, but according to scrimmage, water needs to be released from the dam (Greedy Texas should give back bankrupt Commiefornia's wealth to balance things out)....or the dam will overflow and flood the country! :doh1
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

The salary per capita for an American worker's $25K,yet
banking CEO's are making 800x what an American family's making,that's not overpaid?
Look at the job growth in the $9.03-$12.91 category as workers from higher wage categories get scaled down,if not down and out altogether,bet a lot of Texas' job growth's coming from that trend.

All below from:
http://www.mybudget360.com/middle-class-annihilation-one-penny-at-a-time-income-debt-cash-advances-
credit-card-1000-dollars/#more-3324



Source: National Foundation for Credit Counseling

As we have noted and the media fails to report, the average per capita income in the United States is $25,000. What is even more disturbing is that a recent poll found that 64 percent of Americans would not be able to shoulder even an unexpected expense of $1,000. If a transmission on a car goes down or additional medical expenses hit, it will cost well over $1,000. This is simply another reflection of how the crushing collapse of the middle class will not be televised.



Source: NELP

"This is a very important chart because it tracks jobs lost starting in 2008 and what has been added in the so-called recovery. Over 3.5 million higher wage jobs were lost from January of 2008 to February of 2010. Since that time, only 179,000 higher wage jobs have been added (or 5 percent of what has been lost). Of the 3.2 million jobs lost in the mid-wage industries only 468,000 jobs have been added. Yet the dominant growth comes from the lower-wage sectors. 2 million jobs have been lost but 613,000 have been added. What the chart doesn?t show however is how many of those who lost higher wage jobs are now finding themselves taking jobs in the lower-wage industries.
So what does this all mean? If things don?t change we should get used to this new low wage capitalism world. Take for example what is going on with Texas. It is great that they have been adding jobs but most are in low wage sectors. Companies are going there to leverage the idea that money is scarce and to force more people to do with even less money. Just look at CEO pay and especially the pay in the banking sector and see how bad things really are. You have banking CEOs making 800 timeswhat an American family is making. The middle class is being crushed and some would like to use this opportunity to force Americans to take even less! Next year will be a heated political climate but nothing can change until both sides stop being bought out by financial institutions and those connected to big money. ... What we need is to reform the system and reward businesses that grow the economy by bringing everyone up, not by stealing taxpayer money for the gambling circus with investment banks and hedge funds.
 
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

The salary per capita for an American worker's $25K,yet
banking CEO's are making 800x what an American family's making,that's not overpaid?

I'll ask the same question you didn't answer previously: "overpaid" according to whom? How many people can successfully run a bank? 1 in 800?

CEOs get paid whatever their shareholders think is necessary to maintain a profitable course. If they miscalculate and overpay (or underpay), the bank will suffer. Pretty simple.

Too bad such market constraints don't exist in government, or the US wouldn't be buried in a sea of red ink.

Typical Alinsky progressive BS: spend the country into bankruptcy with pie-in-the-sky socialism, and point fingers at the guy in the corner (today's flavor happens to the "overpaid banking CEO") who had nothing to do with this generational child abuse. 2938u4ji23

Look at the job growth in the $9.03-$12.91 category as workers from higher wage categories get scaled down,if not down and out altogether,bet a lot of Texas' job growth's coming from that trend.

You bet? You mean you're guessing? :doh1

Already posed this, but Texas is middle of the pack for hourly wages and increases.

Here's a link: Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates


Texas median hourly wage is $15.14... almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they've seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.


But the implication here is that the new jobs in Texas, the jobs that Texas seems to stand alone in creating at such a remarkable pace, are low paying jobs and don't really count.


If this were true, all these new low-paying jobs should be dragging down the wages data, right? But if we look at the wages data since
the beginning of the recession (click to enlarge, states are listed alphabetically)





And it turns out that the opposite is true. Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.


As a side note, the only blue state that has faster growing wages is Hawaii. Just thought I'd get that jab in since so many people have been making snarky "Yeah, I could get a job in Texas is I wanted to flip burgers!" comments at me on Twitter.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Texas median hourly wage is $15.14... almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they've seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.

Blowing smoke with that chart Joe,here's what a "median" is:

In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the numerical value separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one. If there is an even number of observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then usually defined to be the mean of the two middle values.
Median - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Take all of Texas' wages from low to high,and the one exactly in the middle is the median,$15.14 isn't the average wage,and doesn't mean the new jobs in Texas are paying workers that rate,for most it could be considerably lower.

CEOs get paid whatever their shareholders think is necessary to maintain a profitable course. If they miscalculate and overpay (or underpay), the bank will suffer. Pretty simple.
In the real business world shareholders seldom decide executive compensation,if they don't like a companys performance all they have to do is sell their shares,and invest in another stock.Significant voting power to make changes,is concentrated with a few big investors anyway[eg. institutions,hedge funds,block traders,and company insiders],who don't begrudge a CEO his frequently outlandish remuneration because they're going to get theirs too somehow.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

"That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."


George Carlin The American Dream
A short excerpt from the video "Life Is Worth Losing" (2005).
<IFRAME height=510 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mGU2Z1WJwXs" frameBorder=0 width=853 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!




by kridkrid
on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 14:13
#1569672

So as Rick Perry is anointed one of the Republican front runners by our thought leaders, it is generally well known by most of these republicans who are being told who they should support that he ran Al Gore's 1988 Texas campaign when Gore was running for president, no? Even if I believed that politics were real... that they weren't just theater and primarily a distraction... so let's say that I'm the average American... Should I buy that Perry is anything other than an empty opportunist? He's a psychopath.

Have you heard him discuss his decission to run for president? "Awww shucks, 6 months ago this wasn't even on my radar... I hadn't given a moments thought to the idea of running for president...". WTF. I don't know why I even watch. It's beyond maddening to know that people actually buy this sh-t, that the media covers it, that we pretend that it's real. It's an illusion.

As for Perry's tough anti-fed talk... such total BS. Perry is controlled opposition. The eventual republican nominee will be no more of a threat to the status quo than the current president, the one before, etc. etc. etc. Rick Perry is a shell... a narcissistic vessel, maddeningly dull, and perfect for his role. How is it that people can't see through this?
Comment from:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-modern-democracy-idiots
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Sometimes a little regulation keeps excess speculation in check,and allows a market to run in an orderly fashion,without fraud running rampant,from the larger piece below in quotes:

"The difference for Texas is one that most free-market conservatives ignore:
It was precisely the tight government regulation of the housing market that spared Texas a similar fate."
The Biggest Little Hypocrite in Texas
Posted on Aug. 16,2011
By Robert Scheer

It is unfathomable that yet another Texas blowhard governor has emerged as a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. The persistent appeal of the mythology of Texas as a model for the nation defies the lessons of logic and experience, and yet here we are with Rick Perry, a George W. Bush look-alike, as a prime contender to once again run our nation into the ground.

To begin with, Texas is not and never will be a model for the nation unless the other states discover similarly rich deposits of oil and natural gas that account for one-third of jobs and supply 40 percent of tax revenues within those states. If Texas energy receipts and jobs helped float Gov. Bush?s reputation, they have been nothing short of miraculous for Perry?s tenure. The price of oil rose from $25 a barrel when Lt. Gov. Perry replaced the newly elected President Bush to $147 in 2008 and has stayed at more than $80 a barrel since, to the dismay of anyone who has to buy gasoline.

In addition, thanks to breakthroughs in oil field technology that Perry had nothing to do with, there have been controversial new drilling techniques that have vastly expanded the exploitation of gas and oil reserves, producing many of the new jobs that the Texas governor claims. For a relatively ineffectual governor, in a state in which the part-time Legislature holds the power, to take credit for this job boom is as ludicrous as a Saudi prince bragging of his entrepreneurial skills as the source of royal wealth.

Unfortunately, the boom in the energy industry has not spread to those in the state stuck in less lucrative sectors of the economy. Texas remains tied with Mississippi for the largest number of workers earning wages equal to or less than the federal minimum wage. This is particularly true for the majority of nonwhite Texans, who account for a good portion of the state population increase that Perry brags about. It will be interesting to see how he handles the immigration issue in light of the fact that the manufacturing sector, particularly automobiles, is dependent on robust traffic of parts and workers across the border from Mexico.

It should be added that much of the non-energy job growth is in the public sector, which has been in part financed by the federal government that Perry lambastes. As the Austin American-Statesman newspaper points out: "? [A]lmost half of the state?s job growth the past two years was led by education, health care and government, the sectors of the economy that will now take a hit as federal stimulus money runs out and the state?s 8% cut in state spending translates into thousands of layoffs among state workers and teachers in the coming months."

There is, however, something very important in the Texas experience that could serve as a model for the nation, and that is the state?s success in avoiding the worst effects of the housing crash. Texas has not suffered anything like the crushing foreclosure crisis that is the main source of joblessness in states from Florida to California. But Perry surely will not dwell on the reasons for Texas having escaped that fate, because his mantra of less government regulation doesn?t work in this instance. If lax environmental and zoning codes were the secret, neighboring Arizona and Nevada would not be the housing basket cases that they are. The difference for Texas is one that most free-market conservatives ignore: It was precisely the tight government regulation of the housing market that spared Texas a similar fate.

From the first days of statehood in 1845, Texas has maintained the strictest laws on home mortgages in the nation. The Texas constitution?s blanket ban on home equity loans, born of outrage over previous land grabs by banks, has been eased substantially over the years, but a firm commitment that the total amount in loans on a house not exceed 80 percent of appraised value, and other consumer-friendly restrictions on mortgage lenders, saved Texas from the home mortgage disaster visited upon many other states.

From:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_biggest_little_hypocrite_in_texas_20110816/
 
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Sometimes a little regulation keeps excess speculation in check,and allows a market to run in an orderly fashion,without fraud running rampant,from the larger piece below in quotes


Spoken like someone who doesn't understand free market economics.

Markets are self-correcting. Where there exists "excess speculation" you can bet that some outside manipulative force is involved (read: govt collusion) which throws everything out of whack.


 

brucefan

EOG Dedicated
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!



Spoken like someone who doesn't understand free market economics.

Markets are self-correcting. Where there exists "excess speculation" you can bet that some outside manipulative force is involved (read: govt collusion) which throws everything out of whack.




Thats correct Joe


The only true regulator is risk, That means if you lose, you fail, no bailouts

Fraud laws are already on the books, where are all the people that were supposed to go to jail working in greedy evil, wall street?

No one did! Greed is not illegal

If you give me a $ 1000 and let me go to a casino, and say if you lose it all, Ill pay you back

I'm taking that grand and putting it all in the oh geez, "progressive" slot machine

What the hell, its a risk free bet
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

This guy really sounds scary!!

[h=1]Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution[/h]<cite class="byline vcard"></cite>

By Chris Moody | The Ticket – <abbr title="2011-08-19T13:16:34Z">12 hrs ago</abbr>






(Kelly West/AP)

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers. Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."
"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

This guy really sounds scary!!

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

<cite class="byline vcard"></cite>

By Chris Moody | The Ticket – <abbr title="2011-08-19T13:16:34Z">12 hrs ago</abbr>






(Kelly West/AP)

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers. Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."
"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Rick Perry jumps in, Tim Pawlenty bows out!

Thats correct Joe


The only true regulator is risk, That means if you lose, you fail, no bailouts

Fraud laws are already on the books, where are all the people that were supposed to go to jail working in greedy evil, wall street?

No one did! Greed is not illegal

If you give me a $ 1000 and let me go to a casino, and say if you lose it all, Ill pay you back

I'm taking that grand and putting it all in the oh geez, "progressive" slot machine

What the hell, its a risk free bet
So true!!Over 80% of the bailouts went to the banks and Wall Street!!
 
Top