Scalia found dead?

[bigsky]

Hate to see it--Chance for Obama to appoint a Muslim

[jazyd]

we are screwed
natural causes????? better check for something funny in the blood, urine or body. Hopefully the senate will delay it until past November if they have any brain function at all.

[bigsky]

Gonna nominate himself

[Darrell KSR]

He just nominated Abdul Kallon for the 11th Circuit Thursday. Bet a lot of people think he's a liberal judge, but he's conservative as can be.

This one will be worth watching, though. A lot hinges on it, to be sure.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

For the Senate to block the nomination process for the remainder of Obama's term, it would be unprecedented. If it matched the longest nomination process in the history of our country would the new justice would be in place by August. Even though the head of the judiciary committee has vowed to block for the remainder of the year, it's going to be very difficult to achieve.

Not to mention that all President's get their Supreme Court nominations to an up and down vote. If this goes more than a few months, this country is in some real serious problems, and it would be a real difficult problem for the Republicans during election time.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

He just nominated Abdul Kallon for the 11th Circuit Thursday. Bet a lot of people think he's a liberal judge, but he's conservative as can be.

This one will be worth watching, though. A lot hinges on it, to be sure.

If he's conservative, then why this reality?

Sessions and Shelby, however, issued a joint statement Thursday evening saying they will oppose the nomination.

"Throughout the process of meeting with the White House on filling judicial vacancies, we negotiated in good faith to find nominees that will serve our state well," according to the statement. "While we thought progress had been made, apparently the White House was never interested in good faith negotiations, and it is too late now."

Especially after they supported his nomination to his current position in 2009. Why would they oppose a "conservative" nomination today? I feel like I know the answer, but am curious to know it from someone with greater insights.

[Darrell KSR]

If he's conservative, then why this reality?

Sessions and Shelby, however, issued a joint statement Thursday evening saying they will oppose the nomination.

"Throughout the process of meeting with the White House on filling judicial vacancies, we negotiated in good faith to find nominees that will serve our state well," according to the statement. "While we thought progress had been made, apparently the White House was never interested in good faith negotiations, and it is too late now."

Especially after they supported his nomination to his current position in 2009. Why would they oppose a "conservative" nomination today? I feel like I know the answer, but am curious to know it from someone with greater insights.

Cause they're idiots following the company line? (Politically, as a conservative, would you want to support a man named "Abdul Kallon?" And nominated by Barack Hussein Obama?)

OK, so they're not idiots. Smart politicos. And good for Alabama, if you ask me. But it's a politics game here.

I know Kallon. Have had several cases in front of him. Ruled against me in a case where I got him overturned by the 11th Circuit (representing plaintiffs) in a new FDCPA case. Only case I've ever done where that has occurred (I don't do much litigation, and almost no appellate work).

Good judge, but conservative. Came from Bradley, Arant, most conservative law firm in the state. No brainer.

[PedroDaGr8]

Is shrewd political move by Obama? Nominating a conservative that he knows the conservative branch can't elect. That they will shoot themselves in the foot trying to score cheap political points based on his name and ehtnicity (and that alone). When they reject that one, he can say "Hey, I nominated a conservative. They are just looking to block me." and he ends up with the upper hand.

[Darrell KSR]

I probably should've started a new thread about Kallon. It's rare I know anything specific about something political and I do think it's worthy of a decent discussion. But will be overshadowed by the Scalia stuff, for sure.

[CitizenBBN]

Well that's depressing as hell.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Cause they're idiots following the company line? (Politically, as a conservative, would you want to support a man named "Abdul Kallon?" And nominated by Barack Hussein Obama?)

OK, so they're not idiots. Smart politicos. And good for Alabama, if you ask me. But it's a politics game here.

I know Kallon. Have had several cases in front of him. Ruled against me in a case where I got him overturned by the 11th Circuit (representing plaintiffs) in a new FDCPA case. Only case I've ever done where that has occurred (I don't do much litigation, and almost no appellate work).

Good judge, but conservative. Came from Bradley, Arant, most conservative law firm in the state. No brainer.

So, are you saying that playing a larger political game warrants rejecting the nomination of a conservative judge that they have supported in the past? If the man is qualified, then he should receive support. George W always said that judges deserve up and down votes, regardless of ideology. I believe in that. Republican Senators do not when there guy isn't the one that is making the nominations.

[jazyd]

So, are you saying that playing a larger political game warrants rejecting the nomination of a conservative judge that they have supported in the past? If the man is qualified, then he should receive support. George W always said that judges deserve up and down votes, regardless of ideology. I believe in that. Republican Senators do not when there guy isn't the one that is making the nominations.

And you think democrats do? They are as bad or worse than republicans. They don't just vote no,my hey try to personally destroy a person any way they can

[StuBleedsBlue2]

And you think democrats do? They are as bad or worse than republicans. They don't just vote no,my hey try to personally destroy a person any way they can

The excuse that because they do it, we can do it to is so lame.

I hate it when the Democrats do it too. I cringed when Bush got two nominations to the Supreme Court, but respected that he was the President and had the right to do so. I believe Obama deserves the same privilege. I'll add, the exact same privilege that Ronald Reagan had for Justice Kennedy's process.

I'm asking Darrell, why would Alabama Senators now reject a conservative(not my term, but his), judge when they supported him for his current position, only a few years ago?

Since this thread is splintering, I'll pick a direction with this comment...

The Republicans are in mourning right now, losing their advocate of 30 years. I get that. However, if they want to do something that has never happened in the history of the US, by refusing to acknowledge the duty of what they were elected to do and the will of the people(sorry Mitch McConnell, but Obama was twiced elected by Americans and received more votes than any President in our history, so deserves to carry out his duties for 8 years), then it's going to cost them in November.

Considering that nobody expected Obama to get a 3rd opportunity, and every person with any sense of the lifespan of the current justices and that the next President could easily have 3 appointees, this is going to blow up big time in the face of the GOP. Swing voters want to see government work, not further division.

Good luck with that strategy, because not only could you lose the opportunity to gain the White House, you could lose all power to stack the courts.

[KeithKSR]

It appears that the established precedent is to not nominate a justice in a presidential election year.

[CitizenBBN]

Stu, the "will of the people" when it comes to SCOTUS is really equal parts President and Senate. It was never intended for the President to "appoint" justices. He "nominates" them to the Senate, who then decides if they are worthy.

It was never meant for him to get his picks, but rather a balance between him and the Senate, some kind of middle ground. that's the nature of the checks and balances of the system.

So it all depends on who he nominates. If he nominates a moderate, which is where this country is at right now with the conservatives running Congress and a liberal in the White House, then fine, they should give it a serious look and move forward.

BUt if he nominates a leftist it's well within the rights of the Senate to say no. Judge Bork was probably one of the smartest men ever nominated, but the Democrats smeared him into oblivion.

that's just part of the checks and balances.

[Genuine Realist]

I hope Obama nominates Srinivasan, bright Indian guy who served in both the Bush and Obama Administrations as Solicitor General. Confirmed to his present appellate post by a 97-0 vote, including Cruz and Rubio.

All I ask is a pragmatist.

[suncat05]

This is how it's going to work: the cowardly, weak-ass Senate will give Obama whatever he wants, just like they have for the last 7+ years. And then the one thing that can and will dramatically shift the balance of power for good (and as CBBN has alluded to several times on this board) and the Republic will be finished. Obama could nominate Josef Stalin and this current Senate would ratify him.
Just sit back and watch.

[suncat05]

He just nominated Abdul Kallon for the 11th Circuit Thursday. Bet a lot of people think he's a liberal judge, but he's conservative as can be.

This one will be worth watching, though. A lot hinges on it, to be sure.

This Abdul Kallon might also be that proverbial "Trojan Horse" too. I do not know the guy, or anything about him, so I will take your word because you do know him, Darrell. But we all thought Chief Justice Roberts was a conservative too, and we see where that has gone. So, in the end, with these people, you never really know for sure.

[bigsky]

This is how it's going to work: the cowardly, weak-ass Senate will give Obama whatever he wants, just like they have for the last 7+ years. And then the one thing that can and will dramatically shift the balance of power for good (and as CBBN has alluded to several times on this board) and the Republic will be finished. Obama could nominate Josef Stalin and this current Senate would ratify him. Just sit back and watch. Agree

[KeithKSR]

This Abdul Kallon might also be that proverbial "Trojan Horse" too. I do not know the guy, or anything about him, so I will take your word because you do know him, Darrell. But we all thought Chief Justice Roberts was a conservative too, and we see where that has gone. So, in the end, with these people, you never really know for sure.

I think Roberts was nominated as a moderate, he had to be able to be confirmed by Reid.

[Doc]

Maybe they will move as rapidly on the confirmation as they did on the IRS or Benghazi. If so, confirmation should come sometime in 2035.

[suncat05]

I think Roberts was nominated as a moderate, he had to be able to be confirmed by Reid.

You are probably right. I honestly don't remember. All I know is that the guy bent over backwards to find a way to call the ACA a "tax", which maybe in the final analysis is right, considering that the IRS is the "enforcement agent" in this nonsense, complete with all kinds of hidden taxes and thousands of new IRS enforcement agents. So I have zero use for the guy. The law is illegal and unconstitutional and is a detriment in many, many ways to American businesses and the American people. I have no use for the guy. He's more worried about his damn "legacy" than he is about protecting us from the vermin in D.C. Truthfully, in my mind, he's one of them. Just as bad, just as culpable, just as negligent in not doing his job.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW if no reasonable candidate is put forward I'm fine with them delaying until after there is a new President.

It's not good form, but it may be necessary. Even if it hurts the GOP in congressional elections it may be worth it. There are now 4 Justices who think there is no right to self defense in this country among other very disturbing things. We can't let it be 5 no matter what.

[kingcat]

I hope Obama nominates Srinivasan, bright Indian guy who served in both the Bush and Obama Administrations as Solicitor General. Confirmed to his present appellate post by a 97-0 vote, including Cruz and Rubio.

All I ask is a pragmatist.

I think he'll be the choice.

[jazyd]

Stu, the "will of the people" when it comes to SCOTUS is really equal parts President and Senate. It was never intended for the President to "appoint" justices. He "nominates" them to the Senate, who then decides if they are worthy.

It was never meant for him to get his picks, but rather a balance between him and the Senate, some kind of middle ground. that's the nature of the checks and balances of the system.

So it all depends on who he nominates. If he nominates a moderate, which is where this country is at right now with the conservatives running Congress and a liberal in the White House, then fine, they should give it a serious look and move forward.

BUt if he nominates a leftist it's well within the rights of the Senate to say no. Judge Bork was probably one of the smartest men ever nominated, but the Democrats smeared him into oblivion.

that's just part of the checks and balances.

I though that was civics 101, evidently some didnt get it

Like citizen, this country and those of us who cherish our individual rights do not want a fifth leftist judge. They do not believe in the constitution as it was written

And suncat, many are not happy with our top judge, he gave the liberals a gift they didn't even ask for

[suncat05]

Agreed, jazy.

[KeithKSR]

I don't think Obama wants to nominate any candidate who stands a chance to be confirmed. I think he wants to ride it out and have himself be nominated by Hillary in 2017.

[Darrell KSR]

we are screwed
natural causes????? better check for something funny in the blood, urine or body. Hopefully the senate will delay it until past November if they have any brain function at all.
Scalia found with pillow over his head...

http://www.youngcons.com/ranch-owner-said-justice-scalia-found-with-pillow-over-his-head/

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[jazyd]

I want to thank Sen a Chuck Shuner for his advice in 2007, Pres Bush last year in office. Schumer said the senate should NOT confirm ANY of Bushes nominees. And since Shumer will be the next Democrat Senate leader I will take him at his word. McConnell has that advice to accept

[jazyd]

Scalia found with pillow over his head...

http://www.youngcons.com/ranch-owner-said-justice-scalia-found-with-pillow-over-his-head/

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I heard that, and of course no foul play. I wonder why the door to his room was locked, just seems odd to me at a ranch with friends on a quail hunt. It was also reported that he said he didn't feel well the night before which seems to often happen before heart failure

[Darrell KSR]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem odd.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, the "will of the people" when it comes to SCOTUS is really equal parts President and Senate. It was never intended for the President to "appoint" justices. He "nominates" them to the Senate, who then decides if they are worthy.

It was never meant for him to get his picks, but rather a balance between him and the Senate, some kind of middle ground. that's the nature of the checks and balances of the system.

So it all depends on who he nominates. If he nominates a moderate, which is where this country is at right now with the conservatives running Congress and a liberal in the White House, then fine, they should give it a serious look and move forward.

BUt if he nominates a leftist it's well within the rights of the Senate to say no. Judge Bork was probably one of the smartest men ever nominated, but the Democrats smeared him into oblivion.

that's just part of the checks and balances.

Thanks for the civics lesson, I completely understand that. The problem with it is that the Republicans are saying they will consider NO candidates for the Supreme Court. That is not the intent spelled out within the Constitution.

I'm completely supportive if the Senate VOTES against a nomination. However, by taking an unprecedented stance to firmly stand against a President's obligation to nominate a candidate is unconstitutional. To use the argument that the people should vote, well they did. Obama was rewarded a 4 year term, not a 3 year term.

It's a disgrace. Moving on though, because there's no doubt that the Republicans are going to block, I love that it's going to be the #1 issue in the election. It will be a decision on social issues, and as that relates to conservatism, it's a losing bet.

People want to see government work, not government that obstructs. The strategy for success for Republicans should be to allow a vote on the nominee. It's clear that the nominee won't win, but from a perception standpoint, it proves that Republicans want to follow process and not let their ideologies stand in the way.

The other thing that's so hypocritical in this is that conservatives claim they're strict constructionists, but stripping powers of the office of the President couldn't be more unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The advise has been given, the President feels it's well in his right(and it is) to nominate. Now the role of the Senate is to consent. The Senate needs to vote. Republicans, listen to your guy George Bush, the nominee deserves and up and down vote.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I want to thank Sen a Chuck Shuner for his advice in 2007, Pres Bush last year in office. Schumer said the senate should NOT confirm ANY of Bushes nominees. And since Shumer will be the next Democrat Senate leader I will take him at his word. McConnell has that advice to accept

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I don't think Obama wants to nominate any candidate who stands a chance to be confirmed. I think he wants to ride it out and have himself be nominated by Hillary in 2017.

I don't think Obama has any interest in moving to the White House to the bench. I could see him accepting a nomination in, say, 10 years from now. I DO think that it should be a strategy to scare people into thinking this is a possibility.

[jazyd]

I don't think Obama wants to nominate any candidate who stands a chance to be confirmed. I think he wants to ride it out and have himself be nominated by Hillary in 2017.

Hope it happens, would be fun to stay home and watch that for days.

[Doc]

Thanks for the civics lesson, I completely understand that. The problem with it is that the Republicans are saying they will consider NO candidates for the Supreme Court. That is not the intent spelled out within the Constitution.

I'm completely supportive if the Senate VOTES against a nomination. However, by taking an unprecedented stance to firmly stand against a President's obligation to nominate a candidate is unconstitutional. To use the argument that the people should vote, well they did. Obama was rewarded a 4 year term, not a 3 year term.

It's a disgrace. Moving on though, because there's no doubt that the Republicans are going to block, I love that it's going to be the #1 issue in the election. It will be a decision on social issues, and as that relates to conservatism, it's a losing bet.

People want to see government work, not government that obstructs. The strategy for success for Republicans should be to allow a vote on the nominee. It's clear that the nominee won't win, but from a perception standpoint, it proves that Republicans want to follow process and not let their ideologies stand in the way.

The other thing that's so hypocritical in this is that conservatives claim they're strict constructionists, but stripping powers of the office of the President couldn't be more unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The advise has been given, the President feels it's well in his right(and it is) to nominate. Now the role of the Senate is to consent. The Senate needs to vote. Republicans, listen to your guy George Bush, the nominee deserves and up and down vote.

Expect we got a dipshit like Sotomayor. Democrats label republicans as "obstructionist" if they don't bow down and give the lefts what they want. Sometime blocking the wrong things is the right thing to do. I can sure promise if Socialist Bernie gets elected, I damn hope every congressman and congresswomen spends every ounce of time and effort trying to obstruct his agenda.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Expect we got a dipshit like Sotomayor. Democrats label republicans as "obstructionist" if they don't bow down and give the lefts what they want. Sometime blocking the wrong things is the right thing to do. I can sure promise if Socialist Bernie gets elected, I damn hope every congressman and congresswomen spends every ounce of time and effort trying to obstruct his agenda.

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

[KeithKSR]

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed.

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.

[Catonahottinroof]

Not if Bloomberg runs as an independent. He will split off enough -D votes to elect a Republican.


As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

[KeithKSR]

I don't think Obama has any interest in moving to the White House to the bench. I could see him accepting a nomination in, say, 10 years from now. I DO think that it should be a strategy to scare people into thinking this is a possibility.

He has great interest in that move according to some Washington insiders.

[KeithKSR]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

They haven't tried to rewrite anything, that would be Obama who has sought to rewrite the Constitution and has been rebuked by SCOTUS for having done it. The Senate isn't preventing Obama from making a nomination, and there is no timeline for the Senate to take his nominations under consideration. I must also point out that it was Harry Reid that held up confirmation votes for numerous federal judges in the final years of GW Bush's tenure.

[bigsky]

It was wrong then, it's wrong now. Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed. Kennedy was nominated in November of 1987, following the Senate declining to approve Bork and Ginsberg, and only confirmed in 88. Pre-Schumer, too.

[jazyd]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

BS, I would spell it out but citizen would get mad, your boy Obama the ultral left liberal nominated two for the Supreme Court, both go by easily. So don't give us that garbage that republicans block everything, it makes it sound like all you do is read what the democrats say and accept it as gospel They have given him way too much of what he wants which is one reason so many republicans are ticked at congress right now.

And yes they have blocked some of his stuff as they should because they are bad for the economy and bad for the country. So what does ole king Obama often do, forget the constittuion and does executive orders.

But keep being the robot for the democrats you are, its fun to watch

[suncat05]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

[Doc]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

Thank you Debbie

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/debbie_wasserman_schultz_scott.jpg

Maybe if the democrats put forth something that wasn't so partisan that republicans might actually find it palatable then they might vote for it. You know like a health care bill that didn't include paying for birth control or a budget that funded planned parenthood? The inclusion of birth control in the ACA was there because the left knew they could FORCE it through. They had no intention of working with the GOP and their goal was to get it through despite the GOP so while the left loves to bitch about the right always fighting against the Presidents plans, perhaps they should take a glance in the mirror every now and then and ask if maybe they too are parcel to the problem.

[Doc]

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.


Don't confuse him with fact. It will screw up his reality.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/99307733/original.gif

[jazyd]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

Suncat, tell us how you really feel. :)

[jazyd]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

If it were to go to a vote you would have to watch McCain, Graham. The lady from Maine...can't think of her name. There are a few that would give away the farm vs doing what's best

[UKHistory]

Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.

The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.

Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?

If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.

I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.

And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.

[dan_bgblue]

Was at the barbershop this morning and I saw a crawl at the bottom of the screen that said congress would not take up the job of agreeing or disagreeing with the nominated candidate

[Darrell KSR]

Was at the barbershop this morning

Braggart!

[KeithKSR]

With the number of Obama involved cases being heard by SCOTUS is seems to be a conflict of interest for him to have yet another appointee to decide those cases.

[kingcat]

People do not even respect the office of President any more. And that started many many years ago.
I am in the" walking on the fighting side of me" camp. So more and more I try to stay away from partisan discussions...which is all there are.

The term bipartisan no longer applies to our government, or our people, except at times in our Supreme Court.
Our President, Mr. Obama is required to nominate a candidate. And Congress is required to fairly and diligently vote on the merits of that nominee regardless of their own political strategy. Any other view is anti American imo.

I argued against the policies of GWB and condemned many of his tactics, but there was always a line I refused to cross out of respect to the office. Sadly there are no longer such parameters and I feel just as many of you would have had I crossed that line.

[KeithKSR]

The error in the SCOTUS argument comes in the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Filling a seat on SCOTUS is part of the checks and balances system. Obama has no interest in the "advise" role of the Senate by seeking out Senatorial recommendations and just wants the Senate to be limited to the "consent" role by voting.

By the way, Obama shows his role is on of chief hypocrite by insisting the Senate vote on any nominee after endorsing a filibuster of Alito in 2006, midway through Bush 43's second term.

[suncat05]

No conspiracy theory here either. But...........these circumstances surrounding Justice Scalia's death, in and of themselves alone, are ordinary circumstances surrounding an extraordinary man. But because he was who he was, his position in life and in our judicial system, and because it is an extemely rare situation where a sitting Justice dies while still on the Bench, and even though all witnessing accounts state that there were no suspicious activities noted, I still have to believe that just because of who he was that discretion is the better part of valor, and that an autopsy should have been ordered by the convening local authority to dispel any doubts of any foul play at all.
This investigation should be all encompassing too. To include the US Marshals involved, the county coroner and Sheriff, the owner of the hunting camp, and every single person involved in the hunt. Food preparation staff, hotel staff, vehicle driver's,..............anybody that had any contact with Justice Scalia prior to his death. Also, any people in D.C. that he had any contact with at all prior to leaving, anyone, going back at least 2 weeks prior to his death.
Leave no stone unturned.
The county coroner dropped the ball, in my estimation, and I say this because of my years of law enforcement experience, which tells me that in this particular situation, every possible conceivable angle is examined and eliminated towards any possible foul play.
Just my humble opinion.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.

Yes, November 1987, right in the middle of a presidential election. Don't try to act like the Republicans wouldn't say the same thing if this happened two months ago.

The key here is that the process played out, not obstructionism. That's all that I ask. Republicans shouldn't talk about strict constructionism and then say that "lame duck" Presidents should do the "right thing" and let the next President decide. That is unconstitutional.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Thank you Debbie

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/debbie_wasserman_schultz_scott.jpg

Maybe if the democrats put forth something that wasn't so partisan that republicans might actually find it palatable then they might vote for it. You know like a health care bill that didn't include paying for birth control or a budget that funded planned parenthood? The inclusion of birth control in the ACA was there because the left knew they could FORCE it through. They had no intention of working with the GOP and their goal was to get it through despite the GOP so while the left loves to bitch about the right always fighting against the Presidents plans, perhaps they should take a glance in the mirror every now and then and ask if maybe they too are parcel to the problem.

Scalia supported Kagan. (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-obama-kagan-axelrod-supreme-court-161701074.html)

The notion that you think that Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic President is completely laughable.

If that's the case, then vowing to obstruct as soon as Obama took office must just be a case of racism and/or bigotry.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The error in the SCOTUS argument comes in the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Filling a seat on SCOTUS is part of the checks and balances system. Obama has no interest in the "advise" role of the Senate by seeking out Senatorial recommendations and just wants the Senate to be limited to the "consent" role by voting.

By the way, Obama shows his role is on of chief hypocrite by insisting the Senate vote on any nominee after endorsing a filibuster of Alito in 2006, midway through Bush 43's second term.

2006 wasn't an election year and his rationale wasn't let the will of the people decide. There are several reason to filibuster(I myself hate the filibuster, so I'm not going to defend it's use), but the reasons for Obama's use in 2006 is completely different than the threat of its use today.

Trying to rewrite the powers of the Presidency is unconstitutional. That's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.

The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.

Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?

If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.

I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.

And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.

Wow!

A rational voice. I'm impressed. You've nailed it, though. Republicans going with this "all-in" strategy is something else. If it doesn't work(and I don't think it will), they will lose the Presidency, the Senate and will result in a stacked court for the next 30 years, which I assume will consume most of our lives.

The people that decide elections don't stand for the unprecedented tactics the Republicans are playing. Nothing has me more excited during this election season to watch it unfold.

The one thing that really is a head scratcher is that let's say that Obama can get his person nominated, and the Republicans take back the White House, the courts will swing back to the leanings of the last 30 years with at least 2 opportunities to replace.

Would the impact of a left leaning court be any greater over the next couple of years by letting the appellate court decisions stand?

Whatever our opinions are, it's just a really bizarre strategy that has a HUGE volatility of returns for the GOP. If it goes wrong, it could completely be the death of conservatism(doubt it), but it would definitely rewrite the book.

[jazyd]

Wow!

A rational voice. I'm impressed. You've nailed it, though. Republicans going with this "all-in" strategy is something else. If it doesn't work(and I don't think it will), they will lose the Presidency, the Senate and will result in a stacked court for the next 30 years, which I assume will consume most of our lives.

The people that decide elections don't stand for the unprecedented tactics the Republicans are playing. Nothing has me more excited during this election season to watch it unfold.

The one thing that really is a head scratcher is that let's say that Obama can get his person nominated, and the Republicans take back the White House, the courts will swing back to the leanings of the last 30 years with at least 2 opportunities to replace.

Would the impact of a left leaning court be any greater over the next couple of years by letting the appellate court decisions stand?

Whatever our opinions are, it's just a really bizarre strategy that has a HUGE volatility of returns for the GOP. If it goes wrong, it could completely be the death of conservatism(doubt it), but it would definitely rewrite the book.

unprecedented????Have you paid any attention to the news the last few days or only read the DNC website.
Reid would not allow any nominess to be voted on during Bush
Schumer said no nominees to be brought up for consideration during Bush last year
Democrats destroying not one but two nominees under Reagan and only got one thru near the election
History has been that in an election year, no new Supreme Court nominee is voted on by either party.
The democrats so easily influence minds.

[jazyd]

2006 wasn't an election year and his rationale wasn't let the will of the people decide. There are several reason to filibuster(I myself hate the filibuster, so I'm not going to defend it's use), but the reasons for Obama's use in 2006 is completely different than the threat of its use today.

Trying to rewrite the powers of the Presidency is unconstitutional. That's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish.

WOW, once again you amaze me. Obama has been rewriting the powers of the Presidency since he has been in office. The republicans are not trying to accomplish what you claim. obama or any president has the right to nominate and that is as far as his power goes. The constitution does not give him the right to nominate and confirm his appointees. The Senate has the right to take under advisement any nominee and then only they can decide whether to vote them in or not.

[jazyd]

Scalia supported Kagan. (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-obama-kagan-axelrod-supreme-court-161701074.html)

The notion that you think that Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic President is completely laughable.

If that's the case, then vowing to obstruct as soon as Obama took office must just be a case of racism and/or bigotry.

Did the republicans vote in Obamas two appointees or not? Plus they have given him almost everything he wants since they took control of both houses. Its why so many are mad at the establishment republicans, they cave.

No one ever accused McConnell of being smart and he makes dumb statements. Next much like....

[suncat05]

I gave zero faith in the US Senate and anything the current Senate leadership says. McConnell is another world class liar, just like Obama & Biden. The only difference in any of the three is their political affiliations, otherwise same-same.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........

[KeithKSR]

Yes, November 1987, right in the middle of a presidential election. Don't try to act like the Republicans wouldn't say the same thing if this happened two months ago.

The key here is that the process played out, not obstructionism. That's all that I ask. Republicans shouldn't talk about strict constructionism and then say that "lame duck" Presidents should do the "right thing" and let the next President decide. That is unconstitutional.

It wasn't unconstitutional when the Dems were upholding Bush 43's nominees to Federal Circuit courts.

It was Leahy and Schumer who invoked the "Thurmond Rule" (his words) in 2007 declaring any Bush judicial nominees would not be brought to a vote.

Upon Lewis Powell's retirement President Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1, 1987. Nearly 19 months before the term ended. Kennedy was the third nomination for the post when he was nominated on November 11, 1987.

[KeithKSR]

Trying to rewrite the powers of the Presidency is unconstitutional. That's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish.

SCOTUS has determined it is Obama who has attempted to circumvent the Constitution on multiple occasions, not the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote on a nominee as part of the process.

[Doc]

Scalia supported Kagan. (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/scalia-obama-kagan-axelrod-supreme-court-161701074.html)

The notion that you think that Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic President is completely laughable.

If that's the case, then vowing to obstruct as soon as Obama took office must just be a case of racism and/or bigotry.

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and the democrats were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

[kingcat]

The President "SHALL" nominate..not "may" or "can". And congress shall fulfill their oath and do their duty with due diligence. Vote up or down on the person's merits, that is American government.

Anything else is as anti-American as any accusations made toward either major party.

Hate is not all that can bring this country to its knees, and yet that's all I see anymore. We've allowed it to consume us.

Sad times. But soon our Lord will do away with the governments of mankind, and Him only will you serve. That's my bottom line. :)

[jazyd]

No conspiracy theory here either. But...........these circumstances surrounding Justice Scalia's death, in and of themselves alone, are ordinary circumstances surrounding an extraordinary man. But because he was who he was, his position in life and in our judicial system, and because it is an extemely rare situation where a sitting Justice dies while still on the Bench, and even though all witnessing accounts state that there were no suspicious activities noted, I still have to believe that just because of who he was that discretion is the better part of valor, and that an autopsy should have been ordered by the convening local authority to dispel any doubts of any foul play at all.
This investigation should be all encompassing too. To include the US Marshals involved, the county coroner and Sheriff, the owner of the hunting camp, and every single person involved in the hunt. Food preparation staff, hotel staff, vehicle driver's,..............anybody that had any contact with Justice Scalia prior to his death. Also, any people in D.C. that he had any contact with at all prior to leaving, anyone, going back at least 2 weeks prior to his death.
Leave no stone unturned.
The county coroner dropped the ball, in my estimation, and I say this because of my years of law enforcement experience, which tells me that in this particular situation, every possible conceivable angle is examined and eliminated towards any possible foul play.
Just my humble opinion.

suncat, I was really surprised they didn't do a autopsy. Because of his position I would have thought that would be automatic. If he was in good health which I guess he was, plus the pillow over his face which on the face of it would be suspicious. With terror in the world, with Obama's sentence winding down and the ability to maybe change the court for the next 20 years or so I would think an autopsy would be automatic.

[Doc]

It amazes me that under Bush, the left (led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) did every dirty low down tactic possible to hinder or slow down the process. Hell, they would even lie and then boast about lying as Harry did concerning Mitt Romney, or use the gov't agencies to target opponents as they did with the IRS or flat out use bribery to pass laws like the ACA, in order to further their causes. Now when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly its a problem. It would be funny if the hypocrisy of it didn't stink so much. Most on the right warned when the left was doing it that it would come back to haunt them, that such tactics were not how the gov't was meant to function but those two sniveling hack cronies did it anyway, and not a peep from their side. Now it's suddenly a problem. Sorry if I don't weep tears for your pathetic objections. Had the outcry come when it wasn't to your advantage then MAYBE I'd respect your complaint, but now its just sour grapes. So keep quoting the constitution. Too bad you didn't do it a few years back.

[Doc]

suncat, I was really surprised they didn't do a autopsy. Because of his position I would have thought that would be automatic. If he was in good health which I guess he was, plus the pillow over his face which on the face of it would be suspicious. With terror in the world, with Obama's sentence winding down and the ability to maybe change the court for the next 20 years or so I would think an autopsy would be automatic.

Me too. Who knows, maybe Hillary had a hand in it. Wouldn't shock me. Liars, cheats and criminals............

[jazyd]

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and them were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

The only ones who understand that are the ones who are free thinkers, who look at both sides, investigate the news and then decide vs just believing what one side of the other tells them.
I always think it is funny to listen to critics of Limbaugh and call anyone that listens to his show mind dumbed robots. Which tells me they don't listen to him with an open mind. Whether you like him or not, he rips both sides. He criticizes republicans often.

There are two men..I think are one and the same..that write letters to the editor of the paper often. I play a game, I look at the headline, read part way thru and then try to decide if one of them wrote it, and I am corrrect about 99% of the time. Because they just repeat exactly the DNC agenda with no exception. PLus both are extreme racists which often gives them away. They are the robots, it is obvious they never look up facts and just repeat what the DNC tells them plus anything racist they can throw at whites, and or republicans. Its funny but sad at the same time.

[jazyd]

Me too. Who knows, maybe Hillary had a hand in it. Wouldn't shock me. Liars, cheats and criminals............

Well, may of Hillary and Bills 'friends' or 'lovers' in her case ended up dead :)

I doubt anything suspicous happened but with the death of any Supreme Court Justice who appeared to be in good health who suddenly dies should be investigated regardless if they are a liberal, moderate or conservative. to me it just makes good sense to rid any doubt on anyone's mind.
I threw the pillow in as it just seems odd unless he always slept with a pillow over his face which is odd anyone. Maybe he suffacated himself in his sleep :)

[jazyd]

I gave zero faith in the US Senate and anything the current Senate leadership says. McConnell is another world class liar, just like Obama & Biden. The only difference in any of the three is their political affiliations, otherwise same-same.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........

I am ashamed McConell is from Kentucky. How in the world he, or Reid or Pelosi got elected to their positions is beyond me, none of the three are very bright. Maybe sex or BJ's.

[KeithKSR]

Government in our country was never intended to work smoothly and without conflict.

[jazyd]

Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.

The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.

Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?

If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.

I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.

And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.

History, there is no way Obama nominates a true moderate, won't happen. One thing he loves to do is try to punish or humiliate republicans in every way he can...he should just let them do it themselves as they are good at it...He will nominate a liberal to try to influence the election or a moderate in disguise to again try to influence the senate and the election.

I have zero faith in Obama.

I don't think republicans are louder or angrier, not when I look back and see the dirty tricks and lies the democrats throw at nominees of republican presidents. They try to destroy the person and the character of the person. But the media gives them a free pass and most of Americans don't look into the truth of what is happening, they just believe what they are told.

Jurists who understand the constitution, I would think Scalia would be that person. Most think he was totally a conservative but there were issues he went against what republicans wanted, he understood the constitution and imo what the founders meant when they wrote the laws.
Roberts is one who has made many conservatives mad because of his writings. Not that he found Obama Care lawful, but he gave the democrats something they didn't ask for by calling it a tax, it never came up. So with that one word he turned the whole thing. He made law by himself. Whether I like him or not, Kennedy is one that you can't put in a bottle and say he is conservative or liberal.

imo, and remembe it is my opinion, liberal presidents want judges who make law, conservative presidents want for the most part judges who interpret the law as the founders intended.

[Doc]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and the democrats were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

That is a perception that is completely false in reality.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

That's all that I'm asking.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Government in our country was never intended to work smoothly and without conflict.

Obstruction is completely different than conflict.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I am ashamed McConell is from Kentucky. How in the world he, or Reid or Pelosi got elected to their positions is beyond me, none of the three are very bright. Maybe sex or BJ's.

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

[suncat05]

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

Given the only two choices there were to pick from Stu, I would venture to say that most of the good folks of the Commonwealth pinched their noses closed as they were casting that ballot. And many of us here spoke of exactly that prior to Election Day. Neither candidate was a good choice, IMHO, so as is most often the case the best choice is the lesser of two evils.

[Doc]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

or NOT confirm

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Given the only two choices there were to pick from Stu, I would venture to say that most of the good folks of the Commonwealth pinched their noses closed as they were casting that ballot. And many of us here spoke of exactly that prior to Election Day. Neither candidate was a good choice, IMHO, so as is most often the case the best choice is the lesser of two evils.

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

[KeithKSR]

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

The Dems keep running terrible candidates against him, who have no chance to win.

[suncat05]

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

Oh, I am not disagreeing with you. As I said, it's choosing the lesser of two evils.

[KeithKSR]

As much as people complain about Mitch it is impossible not to see that much more gets accomplished with him in charge than it did with Reid in charge.

[KeithKSR]

Obstruction is completely different than conflict.

Yep, when Harry Reid refuses to allow votes to be taken it is conflict and the democratic process, if it is McConnell it is obstruction. Only those truly blinded by partisanship cannot see they are the same thing.

[Doc]

That is a perception that is completely false in reality.

No, that is the fallacy that the democrats have successfully perpetuated.

[Doc]

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

Happens in the presidency too. Sometimes you have to choose the least suckiest

example:
http://manifestcollegemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/obama-200x200.jpg or https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-t-1533458-200-ibvkbotrwhwaknmrhgizjhmmwfxeedtg.jpeg


and this year the best the democrats can put out is a criminal or a communist
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-t-1533458-200-ibvkbotrwhwaknmrhgizjhmmwfxeedtg.jpeg or http://cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/00e2793d8a57be44eb648a61fff6aae14d161e4d/c=115-0-527-412&r=x203&c=200x200/local/-/media/2015/09/13/WFMY/WFMY/635777392638524858-bernie-sanders.jpg
so please lecture the right on quality political candidates.

[Doc]

Yep, when Harry Reid refuses to allow votes to be taken it is conflict and the democratic process, if it is McConnell it is obstruction. Only those truly blinded by partisanship cannot see they are the same thing.

As I stated, I'd have sympathy for their "cause" were it not for the hypocrisy. Reid spent years blocking proposals brought forth by the GOP by refusing to bring them to vote before the senate. He did it time and time again, and not one of you on the left complained about it. All those proposals and attempts to move the government forward that were OBSTRUCTED by Harry Reid seem to be so conveniently forgotten now. Many on the right warned that when the left pulled these antics under Reid that they would regret opening that pandora's box. I didn't like it when they did it not because it was the left that did it and got their way but rather because it circumvented the process. Now when the right uses the exact same tactic, the left cries foul. Personally I don't like the tactic and believe its bush (bush as in the baseball reference, not the presidential one) league HOWEVER I don't blame the GOP for doing it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The Dems keep running terrible candidates against him, who have no chance to win.

Then defeat him in the primary.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Happens in the presidency too. Sometimes you have to choose the least suckiest

example:
http://manifestcollegemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/obama-200x200.jpg or https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-t-1533458-200-ibvkbotrwhwaknmrhgizjhmmwfxeedtg.jpeg


and this year the best the democrats can put out is a criminal or a communist
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-t-1533458-200-ibvkbotrwhwaknmrhgizjhmmwfxeedtg.jpeg or http://cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/00e2793d8a57be44eb648a61fff6aae14d161e4d/c=115-0-527-412&r=x203&c=200x200/local/-/media/2015/09/13/WFMY/WFMY/635777392638524858-bernie-sanders.jpg
so please lecture the right on quality political candidates.

The difference here is people are saying they don't like their guy. I like my guys. If you Republicans don't like Mitch, vote him out in the primaries.

I like Obama, Hillary and Bernie, to various degrees. If any of them were President(Obama is), then I'd be happy.

This is a conversation about disliking your own.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

As I stated, I'd have sympathy for their "cause" were it not for the hypocrisy. [/b]Reid spent years blocking proposals brought forth by the GOP by refusing to bring them to vote before the senate. He did it time and time again, and not one of you on the left complained about it.[b] All those proposals and attempts to move the government forward that were OBSTRUCTED by Harry Reid seem to be so conveniently forgotten now. Many on the right warned that when the left pulled these antics under Reid that they would regret opening that pandora's box. I didn't like it when they did it not because it was the left that did it and got their way but rather because it circumvented the process. Now when the right uses the exact same tactic, the left cries foul. Personally I don't like the tactic and believe its bush (bush as in the baseball reference, not the presidential one) league HOWEVER I don't blame the GOP for doing it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So many things wrong with these statements.

First of all, you're implying that Harry Reid invented the tactic. That would make him a political genius, to which he's not. I can't stand the guy and I still rue the day that a top mission of the GOP was to defeat Tom Daschle, effectively elevating Reid to party leader. I'm a Chuck Schumer guy, so at least somebody who I think is competent will be the party lead.

Second, let's say for a minute that Reid did invent the tactics, that means you're embracing the childish notion that "well if they did it, we can to". You're either for obstruction or against it. If you're for it when your guy does it, but against it when the other guy does it, then it makes you a hypocrite, thus should exclude you from calling others one. Pot meet Kettle.

Third, you're trying to equate day to day business and operations of the Senate to the Supreme Court nomination process. It's apples and oranges, or maybe I should say it's grapefruit and grapes. Obstruction, filibustering, back room deals and so many tactics are business as usual in the Senate. What the GOP is proposing to do is unprecedented and it's an attempt to rewrite the powers of the President, a view that is completely opposite of what those people stand for. Circumventing process, using loopholes, etc IS part of the process. Obstructionism IS NOT.

Finally, "not one of you on the left" complained about it. Who are you lumping into that group? In defense, though, we had a whole lot to complain about with the economy going into a free fall, trillions of dollars going out the back door for an unnecessary war and just trying to survive under the regime of the worst President in the history of the US, a term validated by the GOP front-runner. Sorry if we were a little distracted.

[Doc]

So many things wrong with these statements.

First of all, you're implying that Harry Reid invented the tactic. That would make him a political genius, to which he's not. I can't stand the guy and I still rue the day that a top mission of the GOP was to defeat Tom Daschle, effectively elevating Reid to party leader. I'm a Chuck Schumer guy, so at least somebody who I think is competent will be the party lead.

Where did I state he invented or implied he did? What I stated was he utilized it and to some degree mastered it. Yet the left has pouted the last several years that the right is obstructionist. What a joke. As always, they are great at name calling but fail to see that they are exactly what they are accusing other side of doing. Reid and company obstructed EVERY plan the GOP put forward for YEARS. That is a fact. None came up for votes because as speaker of the house he able to block it by himself yet the GOP are the ones who are obstructionist?

Second, let's say for a minute that Reid did invent the tactics, that means you're embracing the childish notion that "well if they did it, we can to". You're either for obstruction or against it. If you're for it when your guy does it, but against it when the other guy does it, then it makes you a hypocrite, thus should exclude you from calling others one. Pot meet Kettle.

I hope you're not that dumb and are just pretending that you lack the ability to read. I clearly stated I disapproved of the tactic then and now. So please quit with the Kettle met pot bullshit. It carries zero weight with me. In fact it one of the stupidest things you could accuse me of.

Third, you're trying to equate day to day business and operations of the Senate to the Supreme Court nomination process. It's apples and oranges, or maybe I should say it's grapefruit and grapes. Obstruction, filibustering, back room deals and so many tactics are business as usual in the Senate. What the GOP is proposing to do is unprecedented and it's an attempt to rewrite the powers of the President, a view that is completely opposite of what those people stand for. Circumventing process, using loopholes, etc IS part of the process. Obstructionism IS NOT.

What you're proposing that some in the GOP are proposing is NOT unpecidented. It was done by the democrats when Bush was President. That was discussed above. Of course the president could get around it if he so desired by just making another one of his Presidental Decrees like he does whenever he doesn't get his way.

Finally, "not one of you on the left" complained about it. Who are you lumping into that group? In defense, though, we had a whole lot to complain about with the economy going into a free fall, trillions of dollars going out the back door for an unnecessary war and just trying to survive under the regime of the worst President in the history of the US, a term validated by the GOP front-runner. Sorry if we were a little distracted.

I assume you are refering to Obama when you talk about the worse President, an economy in freefall and trillions going out the back door because that decribes the last 8 years pretty well, except you forgot to include millions of new welfare recipiants, lower annual incomes, spiralling debt and massive increase in taxes
.

[Doc]

The difference here is people are saying they don't like their guy. I like my guys. If you Republicans don't like Mitch, vote him out in the primaries.

I like Obama, Hillary and Bernie, to various degrees. If any of them were President(Obama is), then I'd be happy.

This is a conversation about disliking your own.


And as much as McConnell sucks, the democrats STILL can put up somebody to beat him. Says a lot about how piss poor they are when a man who very few of the Republicans in the state like can't be beat. I mean REPUBLICANS don't like the guy yet will still vote for him over a democrat!

[StuBleedsBlue2]

And as much as McConnell sucks, the democrats STILL can put up somebody to beat him. Says a lot about how piss poor they are when a man who very few of the Republicans in the state like can't be beat. I mean REPUBLICANS don't like the guy yet will still vote for him over a democrat!

I can't judge who Democrats put up because I don't live in the state, but if McConnell is the best that state can offer, then that's pretty sad. He's rock bottom. Maybe the state's making an error by not replacing him..

[StuBleedsBlue2]

.

It's complete insanity to say the economy is worse off today than it was when Bush left office. It's just plain dumb.

EVERY part of the economy is better off.

And, no I wasn't referring to Obama. It's George W Bush who was the worst President in our history.

My life is tremendously better since Bush left office. The country is on a better track, but there's a lot of work to do still. Defeating 20th century conservatism, or as I like to call it, reverse Socialism, where the rich get richer, and the dumb get louder, is a top priority.

[jazyd]

Doc, we are dealing with a sexual intellectual who can't see the forest for the trees or read and comprehend. He is on ignore, dealing with a sexual intellectual is a waste of time and energy

[KeithKSR]

It's complete insanity to say the economy is worse off today than it was when Bush left office. It's just plain dumb.

EVERY part of the economy is better off.

And, no I wasn't referring to Obama. It's George W Bush who was the worst President in our history.

My life is tremendously better since Bush left office. The country is on a better track, but there's a lot of work to do still. Defeating 20th century conservatism, or as I like to call it, reverse Socialism, where the rich get richer, and the dumb get louder, is a top priority.

The vast majority of people will disagree with you, and rightly so.

Median family incomes are down (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N), the number of people on food stamps is way up, labor participation rate is way down (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000).

For most American families the economy is much worse today than in January 2009.

[Doc]

The vast majority of people will disagree with you, and rightly so.

Median family incomes are down (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N), the number of people on food stamps is way up, labor participation rate is way down (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000).

To those on the left, more people on welfare is good for the economy. It means more citizens are dependant upon the government and its handout, thus more reliant upon them.

To Stu's post above, I too am personally better off due to my hard work, despite the actions of the government. Of course it would be worse were it not for those bastard Republican obstructionists blocking all those grandiose democratic spending sprees

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The vast majority of people will disagree with you, and rightly so.

Median family incomes are down (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N), the number of people on food stamps is way up, labor participation rate is way down (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000).

For most American families the economy is much worse today than in January 2009.

You have selectively chosen two data points of very small indicators of the economy, but I will give you that median family income is still a laggard, but the rate of decline since 1999 was much steeper during the Bush years, it's been relatively flat over the last 5-6 years, after the effects of the failed Bush economy were allowed to recover. A huge byproduct of the Bush economy were people having to take lower paying jobs to replace the jobs lost. That has a tremendous impact on family median income. Comparisons of economic turnaround can't simply be measured by two data points. The rate of change is most significant.

Labor Participation rate? That's completely skewed by baby boomers retiring. It was expected to drop. Now, an argument can be made that more than expected people were forced into retirement because high paying jobs weren't available, but again that's a product of a failed Bush economy.

30 years of trickle down economics take a toll on a nation and the psyche, the true measure of its effect is a growing wealth gap. You can't find a reliable counter argument to argue that the wealth gap continues to grow. It's a real issue that I actually do have with Obama is that he wasn't able to do enough to slow it down. Of course much of what he wanted to accomplish towards solving that problem was blocked.

Unemployment was more than halved, the stock market doubled, the auto industry was saved, the housing market recovered, I can go on and on. If people can't understand why we're significantly better off economically today than we were 8 years ago, that's on them. We'll keep repeating the boom and bust cycle that's magnified by awful trickle down economics. It will accelerate the wealthy to higher highs, the impoverished to lower lows and accelerate the growth of decline of the middle class.

Personally, I'll favor slow, steady and sustainable growth every time. Is the economy in the best place it can be? Of course not, but we're a whole lot better off today. Is every person in America going to see it that way? Absolutely not, but the overwhelming evidence that shows we are better off today is indisputable to rational people.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

To those on the left, more people on welfare is good for the economy. It means more citizens are dependant upon the government and its handout, thus more reliant upon them.

To Stu's post above, I too am personally better off due to my hard work, despite the actions of the government. Of course it would be worse were it not for those bastard Republican obstructionists blocking all those grandiose democratic spending sprees

Nothing has been a bigger drain than the Iraq war, that we will continue to pay for generations. Not to mention, Republicans have been pretty deft at spending themselves. Not to mention welfare for the wealthy in excessive tax breaks.

Most Americans get to where they are through their hard work, but even those that work hard were denied the ability to do so, again and again, due to failed economic policies. Those that were able to survive, they should be thankful, because there are a whole lot of people that weren't so lucky, but the environment is much more stable and conducive to success than it was in 08-09.

[Darrell KSR]

Back to the issue of Supreme Court nomination... How about this proposal to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor? I like the thought process.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/obama_should_nominate_retired_justice_oconnor_to_t he_supreme_court_profs_sa/

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Nothing has been a bigger drain than the Iraq war, that we will continue to pay for generations. Not to mention, Republicans have been pretty deft at spending themselves. Not to mention welfare for the wealthy in excessive tax breaks.

Most Americans get to where they are through their hard work, but even those that work hard were denied the ability to do so, again and again, due to failed economic policies. Those that were able to survive, they should be thankful, because there are a whole lot of people that weren't so lucky, but the environment is much more stable and conducive to success than it was in 08-09.


Wars end, entitlements don't. The astronomical suckage of money created by the ACA will far overshadow the spending of Iraq when you look back a decade or two from now assuming it doesn't get fixed. And of course the generous handouts such as "cash for clunkers" or God forbid Bernie's go to college for free plan comes to fruition, just keep adding up.

Too bad so many democrat in Congress voted in favor of the Iraq conflict, huh? Maybe they should they have been obstructionist and stood for what they believe in

Also, the cost of the Iraqi war ( http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6 )is basically the same as the 10 year cost of Obama Care( http://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=cost+of+iraq+war&oq=cost+of+iraq+war&gs_l=tablet-gws.12..0l3.2303.9636.0.13379.16.12.0.0.0.0.1308.4 136.0j2j1j1j2j2j0j1.9.0....0...1.1.64.tablet-gws..7.9.4130.VPq3SMWl3DA ). One ends, one doesn't.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Wars end, entitlements don't. The astronomical suckage of money created by the ACA will far overshadow the spending of Iraq when you look back a decade or two from now assuming it doesn't get fixed. And of course the generous handouts such as "cash for clunkers" or God forbid Bernie's go to college for free plan comes to fruition, just keep adding up.

Too bad so many democrat in Congress voted in favor of the Iraq conflict, huh? Maybe they should they have been obstructionist and stood for what they believe in

Also, the cost of the Iraqi war ( http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6 )is basically the same as the 10 year cost of Obama Care( http://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=cost+of+iraq+war&oq=cost+of+iraq+war&gs_l=tablet-gws.12..0l3.2303.9636.0.13379.16.12.0.0.0.0.1308.4 136.0j2j1j1j2j2j0j1.9.0....0...1.1.64.tablet-gws..7.9.4130.VPq3SMWl3DA ). One ends, one doesn't.

Not true. The casualties of war can be never ending, or at a minimum, last our generations.

Obamacare and other programs are always meant to be fine-tuned. People always forget that the cost of doing nothing exceeds the cost of Obamacare. Escalating costs are slowing. That's a start. A full repeal will send us to a catastrophic state where millions go uninsured and insurance companies and the drug companies can profit without obstruction.

We can argue on who spends what all day, it's pointless. Both parties are completely guilty of overspending, and don't try to act like it's a one-party practice. We just have a disagreement on how to spend, or over spend.

I prefer to spend on infrastructure, making education affordable, innovation, the middle class and those less fortunate. Having said that, there's a HUGE need for reform in all of these areas.

Most Republicans prefer to give it to the wealthy, corporations and defense, probably the most bloated areas of our country. Hardly any of it "trickles". Wealthy people reinvest, corporations hoard cash overseas and Republicans just want to fight useless wars when we have so many problems at home that need to be addressed.

[dan_bgblue]

Back to the issue of Supreme Court nomination... How about this proposal to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor? I like the thought process.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/obama_should_nominate_retired_justice_oconnor_to_t he_supreme_court_profs_sa/

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I think the idea has serious merit. Confirmation would be almost assured and the process should not take long. Then the court could take up it's cases and move forward with little interruption.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Why would Obama nominate someone that's 85 years old, that's already retired from the court?

If he were to make a recess appointment, I'd be supportive of that selection, but I don't think the President deserves anything less than to put up a permanent replacement for nomination.

He's going to pick someone that was confirmed with 95+ votes and make the Republicans make the case of why a moderate pick is not suitable for the Supreme Court and not make it look like it's ONLY political, which of course it is.

Then when they can't make that case, it's going to be a long few months for them. The longer they screw around, the better.

[KeithKSR]

Escalating costs are slowing down? Try to explain that to people who have seen the price of their insurance increase five fold under ACA while having deductibles go from nothing to thousands of dollars.

The only way ACA was ever passed was through special carve outs and outright lies.

Obama has surpassed Carter as the worst President of my lifetime.

[KeithKSR]

Why would Obama nominate someone that's 85 years old, that's already retired from the court?

If he were to make a recess appointment, I'd be supportive of that selection, but I don't think the President deserves anything less than to put up a permanent replacement for nomination.

He's going to pick someone that was confirmed with 95+ votes and make the Republicans make the case of why a moderate pick is not suitable for the Supreme Court and not make it look like it's ONLY political, which of course it is.

Then when they can't make that case, it's going to be a long few months for them. The longer they screw around, the better.

I agree he's not gonna appoint O'Connor. He also will not nominate a moderate, he made that clear yesterday.

[KeithKSR]

I think the idea has serious merit. Confirmation would be almost assured and the process should not take long. Then the court could take up it's cases and move forward with little interruption.

There is little interruption anyway. Many cases are in the process of being written, with decisions having been made. The only cases which won't be settled are those that end in a 4-4 deadlock, which may be few I number.

[Doc]

Nothing has been a bigger drain than the Iraq war, that we will continue to pay for generations. Not to mention, Republicans have been pretty deft at spending themselves. Not to mention welfare for the wealthy in excessive tax breaks.

Aren't you the one who claimed "well if they did it, we can to" was a poor justification? I seeem to recall that somewhere above

Most Americans get to where they are through their hard work, but even those that work hard were denied the ability to do so, again and again, due to failed economic policies. Those that were able to survive, they should be thankful, because there are a whole lot of people that weren't so lucky, but the environment is much more stable and conducive to success than it was in 08-09.

You need not lecture me on the how one rises thru the economic system. I've been there and done it. See my parents work their asses off to pay for their kids childrens education, as well as paying for mine. I payed for my education with the help of my parents and paid my education debt w/o any govt handouts. I spent the last 23 years building my business to accumulate my wealth without the gov'ts handout or help. I have no interest in paying for the education of somebody elses kids in addition to mine. I didn't have the fun of creating those kids so I shouldn't have the responsibility of paying for them via welfare or other entitlements. Thats what PARENTS do.

As for the topic at hand, lets compare apples to apples.... remember old Chuck Schumers stance back in 2007 when Bush was looking to fill the court with 19 months left in his term? According to Chuck... quote: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

LINK (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283)

You want to talk about that pot and kettle?

[Doc]

I'm hearing the 2 top candidates of the short list are Judge Judy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy) and Judge Reinhold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Reinhold) (a Martin County Florida High School Grad).

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You need not lecture me on the how one rises thru the economic system. I've been there and done it. See my parents work their asses off to pay for their kids childrens education, as well as paying for mine. I payed for my education with the help of my parents and paid my education debt w/o any govt handouts. I spent the last 23 years building my business to accumulate my wealth without the gov'ts handout or help. I have no interest in paying for the education of somebody elses kids in addition to mine. I didn't have the fun of creating those kids so I shouldn't have the responsibility of paying for them via welfare or other entitlements. Thats what PARENTS do.

As for the topic at hand, lets compare apples to apples.... remember old Chuck Schumers stance back in 2007 when Bush was looking to fill the court with 19 months left in his term? According to Chuck... quote: "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

LINK (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283)

You want to talk about that pot and kettle?

If you started and maintained a business over the course of 23 years, I'm sure you took advantage of some very nice tax breaks for businesses that have happened over that course of time that were implemented by both parties.

Let's just say for a minute that you haven't received any direct benefit. I'm not sure what line of business that you're in, but there's no way that you can say with certainty that your clientele hasn't benefited from the government and passed that on to you and your business.

EVERYBODY benefits from government in some way or another.

[Doc]

If you started and maintained a business over the course of 23 years, I'm sure you took advantage of some very nice tax breaks for businesses that have happened over that course of time that were implemented by both parties.

EVERYBODY benefits from government in some way or another.


During that time I employed dozens if not hundreds of people who in turn paid taxes as well. As a small business, I didn't get any of the "nice tax breaks" to which you refer. In actuality I have had to pay some rather ridiculous taxes based on my profession each and every year. Some of which I'd consider bizarre, other that border on extortion, so please don't pretend to understand my business or how the government regulates me or my business. You don't have the faintest clue about it But thats another matter. I pay my fair share PLUS some to cover the roughly half of the population that pays NO INCOME tax. Yes, everybody benefits from the government, its just that some, myself included, pay for it while many don't and those prefer to suckle off its teat. I guess I'm suppose to be thankful because I have a job. As I stated, I took no government HANDOUT or HELP. There were no goverment bailouts for me or my business. I took a private loan to purchase my business and paid it off with my money. As a business owner, I have no unemployment benefits were it to go under. I have a private disability policy that I pay for. My insurance policies are mine, paid for by me, not Uncle Sam. My college paid for by my parent and a private student loan which I paid back in full. My retirement is funded by me (Oh, I put into Social Security but I'm not counting on that). So the "benefits" the goverment provided, like roads, etc... are things I PAID for with my tax dollars so they are things I actually purchased rather than handouts. Understand?

[jazyd]

During that time I employed dozens if not hundreds of people who in turn paid taxes as well. As a small business, I didn't get any of the "nice tax breaks" to which you refer. In actuality I have had to pay some rather ridiculous taxes based on my profession each and every year. Some of which I'd consider bizarre, other that border on extortion, so please don't pretend to understand my business or how the government regulates me or my business. You don't have the faintest clue about it But thats another matter. I pay my fair share PLUS some to cover the roughly half of the population that pays NO INCOME tax. Yes, everybody benefits from the government, its just that some, myself included, pay for it while many don't and those prefer to suckle off its teat. I guess I'm suppose to be thankful because I have a job. As I stated, I took no government HANDOUT or HELP. There were no goverment bailouts for me or my business. I took a private loan to purchase my business and paid it off with my money. As a business owner, I have no unemployment benefits were it to go under. I have a private disability policy that I pay for. My insurance policies are mine, paid for by me, not Uncle Sam. My college paid for by my parent and a private student loan which I paid back in full. My retirement is funded by me (Oh, I put into Social Security but I'm not counting on that). So the "benefits" the goverment provided, like roads, etc... are things I PAID for with my tax dollars so they are things I actually purchased rather than handouts. Understand?

You and I are in the exact same boat, from the college loan it took me 7.5 years to pay back, to all the taxes, to owning my own small business with the same things you go thru

And no he won't understand, sexual intellectuals never do

[PedroDaGr8]

You and I are in the exact same boat, from the college loan it took me 7.5 years to pay back, to all the taxes, to owning my own small business with the same things you go thru

And no he won't understand, sexual intellectuals never do
You mean the government subsidized tuition that allowed college to be affordable for you (I will assume you sent to school at the latest in the early 80s), that has had the subsidies gutted and as a result is entrapping many young kids in mountains of debt.

[Doc]

Some would counter that the governments subsidizing of the education system is in part the reason behind the skyrocketing cost of education. Free markets tend to cause the lowering of the costs of goods and services. With subsidizing, the colleges have no incentive to become less expensive, and in fact encourages then to raise their costs since the gov't willing to pay more and more.

[bigsky]

So the drowning in debt is an interesting subject. It used to be, prior to 2008, that there were controls on student loans. After ceilings were lifted student debt skyrocketed (look at it since 2008).

Students aren't incurring debt to pay their share for govt subsidized tuition. Debt is paying their rent, restaurants, drinking, smartphones and phone bills, clothes, insurance, power bill, trips, ski passes, etc. Students take 6 years to graduate because going to college is awesome fun.

Debt can be reduced by planning your curriculum exactly, taking dual credit/dual enrollment classes in high school, taking 18 credits a semester, going to summer school, eating meals prepared at home from basic food, having a basic phone, wearing costco jeans and tj maxx, and spending most of your time on campus especially with an on/campus part time job. Debt burden can be borne by picking an engineering or other high paying field and by graduating cum laude or better.

Students who incur debt and graduate, graduate with an average debt of 28K (in Montana). This is usually stated by Ds and press as "average students graduate with 28k in debt". Setting aside what debt good or bad students graduate with for a moment, 40% of students graduate with no debt. So average debt is 19K, again another story.

28k is doable for an A student in computer science or engineering or nursing or many of the stem fields. Not so much french medieval poetry or art history... or poli sci...

[Doc]

So the drowning in debt is an interesting subject. It used to be, prior to 2008, that there were controls on student loans. After ceilings were lifted student debt skyrocketed (look at it since 2008).

Students aren't incurring debt to pay their share for govt subsidized tuition. Debt is paying their rent, restaurants, drinking, smartphones and phone bills, clothes, insurance, power bill, trips, ski passes, etc. Students take 6 years to graduate because going to college is awesome fun.

Debt can be reduced by planning your curriculum exactly, taking dual credit/dual enrollment classes in high school, taking 18 credits a semester, going to summer school, eating meals prepared at home from basic food, having a basic phone, wearing costco jeans and tj maxx, and spending most of your time on campus especially with an on/campus part time job. Debt burden can be borne by picking an engineering or other high paying field and by graduating cum laude or better.

Students who incur debt and graduate, graduate with an average debt of 28K (in Montana). This is usually stated by Ds and press as "average students graduate with 28k in debt". Setting aside what debt good or bad students graduate with for a moment, 40% of students graduate with no debt. So average debt is 19K, again another story.

28k is doable for an A student in computer science or engineering or nursing or many of the stem fields. Not so much french medieval poetry or art history... or poli sci...

Bingo..... getting a degree in French Literature is wonderful. Doesn't do you much for making money though.

What the "Bernie Sanders Crowd" who is all for free college fails to realize is that with "free college" comes enormous taxes so while your college may be "free" and you don't graduate with a 30K student loan to pay back over 15 years, instead you will have a lifetime of increase taxes that you will be paying EVERY YEAR for the next 50 years. And when the government is paying for your college, their is no incentive for the education to become cheaper or more efficient. What was the last government run program that was done either efficiently or fiscally responsibly?

[KeithKSR]

There is a reason tuition prices have skyrocketed since 2008, why many colleges have gone on spending sprees and have been erecting multiple new buildings.

[jazyd]

You mean the government subsidized tuition that allowed college to be affordable for you (I will assume you sent to school at the latest in the early 80s), that has had the subsidies gutted and as a result is entrapping many young kids in mountains of debt.


Hmmm noticed you didn't go after doc for saying the same thing

Now tell me how many people do you employ, pay into their social security, propert taxes on your propert, property taxes on business inventory and fixtures, computers, inventory tax to the city our business is in, tourism and city taxes at the hotels we stay at for business, extra sakes taxes on food at restaurants so each city can have even more money to steal or waste.

And no my wife and I didn't go to college in the 80's, we earned our degrees un 1970, all 3 of them, all paid by us and no handouts like some of you like to gave. Nor did we join the drug headed hippies of that time. We both lost multiple classmates and friends in Vietnam...just to satisfy you I failed the physical otherwise I would have been a Marine and probably had my ass shot in Nam....

We pay way more than our fair share so don't give your sh.t about the debt. Guys like doc, citizen and myself support all the last sob's that live off your precious government handouts. We pay taxes out the wazoo, emp'oyee people, give and give and give. We don't get free food, free phones, free minutes, free housing, free schools, free medical, free dental, free hospitals, free earned income tax credits...that is a good obe "earned" free rebates for not working and paying taxes....and taking care of all those illegals who break our laws and then get so much free that doc, citizen nor me and our families get for free. Maybe those like us should just shut down, move out of the country and let those like you figure out how to pay for all that crap

[PedroDaGr8]

Hmmm noticed you didn't go after doc for saying the same thing

Now tell me how many people do you employ, pay into their social security, propert taxes on your propert, property taxes on business inventory and fixtures, computers, inventory tax to the city our business is in, tourism and city taxes at the hotels we stay at for business, extra sakes taxes on food at restaurants so each city can have even more money to steal or waste.

And no my wife and I didn't go to college in the 80's, we earned our degrees un 1970, all 3 of them, all paid by us and no handouts like some of you like to gave. Nor did we join the drug headed hippies of that time. We both lost multiple classmates and friends in Vietnam...just to satisfy you I failed the physical otherwise I would have been a Marine and probably had my ass shot in Nam....

We pay way more than our fair share so don't give your sh.t about the debt. Guys like doc, citizen and myself support all the last sob's that live off your precious government handouts. We pay taxes out the wazoo, emp'oyee people, give and give and give. We don't get free food, free phones, free minutes, free housing, free schools, free medical, free dental, free hospitals, free earned income tax credits...that is a good obe "earned" free rebates for not working and paying taxes....and taking care of all those illegals who break our laws and then get so much free that doc, citizen nor me and our families get for free. Maybe those like us should just shut down, move out of the country and let those like you figure out how to pay for all that crap

We all pay taxes, good on you for running a successful business I respect you for that. But as usual, you are eager to put words in my mouth I never ONCE said free, I DID say that costs had gotten heavily out of hand. I don't get free anything, nor do I want it. I have paid my share and still am, what I want is for those that follow me to not get screwed as they are right now. I left school with a masters degree in Chemistry with $43,000 in debt (and tuition has gone up even worse since I graduated) and discovered entry level jobs in chemistry pay around $35-40k/yr at the time. This is with working 20hr weeks during the school year and full time over the summer. Around 1/4 of my current monthly take-home income goes solely to my student loans. The 1970s were even MORE favorable for you, higher relative minimum wage AND lower college tuition. In 1972 tuition for the YEAR was around $1800 (in 2015 dollars), the cost is NOW $10,000/yr (these are for UK) and that is before even discussing books and other required materials (books have seen a similar rise in cost). So cut the crap on how BAD you had it back then. You have the usual "F*** you I got mine, you don't get yours" kinda attitude. In th 1970s you could work around 300 hours (around 8 weeks, doable in a summer) at 1970s minimum wage and pay for college. Currently, it is at 32 weeks and rapidly climbing many mid-range schools it is actually impossible now. Quite simply, someone could work full time the whole year and go to school for one semester. That is the only way they can do it if thhey don't have rich family members and don't want to take on debt. Pell grants have been slashed, tuition is sky high, books and other required fees are through the roof. I don't care how it is done, whether it is a national cap on tuition prices or subsidies, or what but at this rate, MANY people not from wealthy families are drowning in college debt. To make matters worse, most jobs with any advancement anymore require AT LEAST a BS degree.

None of this even begins to discuss room and board or food. If you want to sleep somewhere and eat, add more weeks to these totals.

Unfortuantely, cutting students able to go to college won't work because the job market won't bear it. All of the manual labor factory jobs are GONE. There just isn't many options left like there was before the 1970s and 80s happened.

EDIT: Removed ad hominem remark.

[CitizenBBN]

I don't want to lock this thread but if the personal attacks continue then so be it.


As for "free education", nothing could be a worse idea for education in this country. The government has not once in its history taken over the financing of something and seen the product get BETTER or MORE EFFICIENT or LESS EXPENSIVE. All that will happen is more of exactly what has happened with the increases in subsidies, which is college costs going through the roof.

Why is that? Don't people think to ask why some areas of our economy are getting more expensive in leaps and bounds while others get better and cheaper every year? Why is it that I can buy the latest greatest computer for a fraction of what lesser products cost 10 years ago yet in areas like health care and education the opposite is true where we pay more and get less? If the computer industry was overseen and deeply influenced by government does anyone think we'd be this far along with this quality and price point? Anyone?

Maybe it's that those areas are all but run by the government? Governments think in terms of growing budgets, growing bureaucracy and absolutely NOT improving product quality and lowering costs. So their solution to college tuition going up is to make more money available so it can go up even more! Good plan.

First, I disagree with Pedro that we need everyone to go to college. Nonsense. College is the most bloated time suck I've ever seen. You can go there for years and not learn anything useful to helping the economy or yourself. Even if you do learn something you can still have LOADS of time spent on things you don't need.

Does that mean we need welders and textile workers? Well not as many, though we could bring some of those jobs back if we had any sense, but we could instead focus on schools that teach a more narrow group of skills that could get you a white collar job.

I need a person who can just operate in an office. You don't need classes in chemistry for what I need, and likewise if you want to be in a lab you don't need classes in Eastern history.

That's great to have, and I have a classic liberal arts education, but it's not necessary for people to have those things to be productive in a modern economy.

I'm with Mike Rowe, a guy who maybe has more job experience than anyone in the country. There's work to be done out there that doesn't require a 4 year degree, plenty of it, both dirty and otherwise. so stop spending tens of thousands at schools where you really don't get the return on your investment and focus on getting a career and making a living.

Free tuition isn't the answer, that's just the socialist wrapped version of tax and spend, promising goodies to get votes and kicking the bill down the road. The answer is job creation and the way to do that is to get the tangle of bureaucracy out of the free market and let it go to work again, with a heavy emphasis on small business and new business startups.

[bigsky]

We need "everyone", lets call it 65%, or more, to have post secondary training/education/certificate/associates/degree in something that prepares them to compete successfully in the job market

[CitizenBBN]

We need "everyone", lets call it 65%, or more, to have post secondary training/education/certificate/associates/degree in something that prepares them to compete successfully in the job market

I can agree with that, it just doesn't have to be a 4 year "college degree".

Though honestly another aspect of that is that high school and parents have really dumbed down in the ability to train people to work for a living and if that weren't the case we wouldn't need the percentage to be that high.

[suncat05]

I used to be licensed and certified in a secondary occupation, but I let that lapse when I joined the Army back in the 80's. I currently hold certifications in two different law enforcement disciplines here in Florida, but with retirement not far off, I have taken an interest in something in a related area, and in which I will be my own boss and be able to choose how much or how little I will work.
I have 2 Associate Degrees, one in General Education and the other in Law Enforcement. While having never attained a Bachelor's Degree, I feel that I have done well enough with what I currently have. And upon retirement, I am going to do what I want, when I want, how I want and I will be able to say "No" if I want to. My initial starting costs will be minimal, and being able to work at home is absolutely priceless.
In that respect CBBN, Doc & jazyd are right on point. And I fully agree with CBBN'S assessment that college educations, for anything outside occupations that are "needed & necessary" are a waste of time and money. Degrees in medicine and related fields are necessary and worthwhile, along with education, computer sciences, law, engineering, those are necessary and needed degrees. In my book, extremely valuable. Now there are degrees in other occupations that, in my mind, are a complete waste of time. POLITICAL SCIENCE is one. Absolute waste of effort and money considering the piss poor return that we, the citizens of this country receive for all of that hot air bloviation. And I guess it might serve some useful purpose, but I have some serious doubts as to how useful a degree in "classic medieval poetry" might be out in the real world.
Why has America been losing jobs and its manufacturing ability? Start with the socialist controlled labor unions, and domestic job destruction legislation like NAFTA & the TPP, and all of its, and all of the career politicians in Congress that have never hit an honest lick in their damn lives and wouldn't know hard work if it bit them in their worthless behinds.
These are just my thoughts. Yours may differ.

[PedroDaGr8]

I don't want to lock this thread but if the personal attacks continue then so be it.


As for "free education", nothing could be a worse idea for education in this country. The government has not once in its history taken over the financing of something and seen the product get BETTER or MORE EFFICIENT or LESS EXPENSIVE. All that will happen is more of exactly what has happened with the increases in subsidies, which is college costs going through the roof.

Why is that? Don't people think to ask why some areas of our economy are getting more expensive in leaps and bounds while others get better and cheaper every year? Why is it that I can buy the latest greatest computer for a fraction of what lesser products cost 10 years ago yet in areas like health care and education the opposite is true where we pay more and get less? If the computer industry was overseen and deeply influenced by government does anyone think we'd be this far along with this quality and price point? Anyone?

Maybe it's that those areas are all but run by the government? Governments think in terms of growing budgets, growing bureaucracy and absolutely NOT improving product quality and lowering costs. So their solution to college tuition going up is to make more money available so it can go up even more! Good plan.

First, I disagree with Pedro that we need everyone to go to college. Nonsense. College is the most bloated time suck I've ever seen. You can go there for years and not learn anything useful to helping the economy or yourself. Even if you do learn something you can still have LOADS of time spent on things you don't need.

Does that mean we need welders and textile workers? Well not as many, though we could bring some of those jobs back if we had any sense, but we could instead focus on schools that teach a more narrow group of skills that could get you a white collar job.

I need a person who can just operate in an office. You don't need classes in chemistry for what I need, and likewise if you want to be in a lab you don't need classes in Eastern history.

That's great to have, and I have a classic liberal arts education, but it's not necessary for people to have those things to be productive in a modern economy.

I'm with Mike Rowe, a guy who maybe has more job experience than anyone in the country. There's work to be done out there that doesn't require a 4 year degree, plenty of it, both dirty and otherwise. so stop spending tens of thousands at schools where you really don't get the return on your investment and focus on getting a career and making a living.

Free tuition isn't the answer, that's just the socialist wrapped version of tax and spend, promising goodies to get votes and kicking the bill down the road. The answer is job creation and the way to do that is to get the tangle of bureaucracy out of the free market and let it go to work again, with a heavy emphasis on small business and new business startups.

Removed my ad hominem attack, sorry about that it was truly uncalled for and sorry to Jazy for the the comment.

I agree with you in principle and would agree with you in reality if the job market wasn't what it currently is. By saying the jobs will come and not everyone needs a college degree; you are just kicking the can down the road as well. The businesses are pushing everything to weaker labor markets, any job they can push there they will; from manufacturing, to R&D, to IT, all of it is going there. It is driving down the rates of pay for even the more technical jobs now, the one exception being computer science (and one could argue that pay is in the midst of a bubble). It is also eliminating the most basic entry level jobs because those are the most easily outsourced. I remember when I graduated, the ENTRY level jobs were requiring 3 yrs industrial experience, it took me almost two years to find a job. Thankfully, that has subsided some at least. Something has to be done, because we are rapidly approaching a dwindling middle class because of a lack of jobs to enter that level. Your generation will be fine, in mine those that are fine are already doing fine, those that got screwed by student loans likely never will, those that screwed themselves likely never will either but every generation has that bunch. The ones screwed by student loans are more or less lost at this point with very little chance of recovery EVER. Hopefully, the one after mine will be fine too. Combine this with HR departments which are requiring BS degrees for even the most menial jobs (I have seen janitorial jobs with a BS/BA requirement) and you can see how it is rapidly becoming a trap. The causes for this are various (consolidation into larger corporations, red-tape, natural results of capitalism, etc.) and as such, how do you ACTUALLY fix it. Saying remove the red tape is nice but in the past we haven't seen it translate to increased hiring let alone increased wages for the middle class. Increased share-holder (and as a result CEO) returns and stock buy backs yeah, but it hasn't shown signs of helping out the middle class.

I lost another acquaintance to suicide a few months back, the main reason crippling student loan debt. He had a degree in physics, had the bad luck of graduating when the market tanked. Penalties and interest basically ended up doubling his loan amounts before he could get a real job (he worked several part time jobs). Many were through private loans which means that they didn't have to follow the 25% of income payment rule that public loans now are set at, many private lenders can be real dicks. He basically realized/felt, that he would be paying for these for the rest of his life, never getting ahead, that there was no way he could escape from it. While I believe in the future his earnings would have improved enough for him to get on top of it, who knows and at that point with what kind of life would be left? Not enough life left to purchase a house, build up his retirement properly, etc. This is someone who did things "the right way", got good grades in school majored in a STEM major (though clearly not the right one), went to college like his parents told him. In the end, doing it the "right way" is what ruined his life.

As for socialism, I think it is a response of the middle class feeling increasing amounts of pressure. I don't think it is a case where people think "hey, things are great lets fundamentally change them" i think it is more of "I am barely hanging on by a thread, one wrong move could ruin my life for good. I am scared". They have had friends lives ruined by a job loss, my a medical illness, etc. They know that all of the talent in the world can't save them from this. It is one chance occurence and boom their life as they know it is gone for good. In theory, socialism offers them a safety net a situation where they feel like if they fall they don't fall far. I think if there were solid jobs that people, especially lower middle class, could do and get; there would be much less of a push for socialism. As a result, the barometer of socialism could be viewed as a "canary in the coal mine" for what the middle class and lower middle class are REALLY feeling.

Another thing I will agree with you on, the state of business/life teaching in school is abysmal. Hell life teaching in general, part of the reason is because society has moved so fast but also because there is so much of a push to teach SO many things. To be honest, it is MUCH more useful for most kids to learn how to create a budget and manage debt than it is to teach them Integral Calculus. I say this as someone who made it through Calc IV and matrix algebra. In the Univ. of Cali system, if you get a masters in science, you are are required to take business courses as well. In particular, startup business related courses. This gets you ready for actually managing your own business. Very few other school systems do this, KY certainly did not when I was there.

Another thing to note, we unfortunately in this country have rejected science spending. In particular the funding for fundamental (read not directly business applicable) scientific research. In a decade or less, we will lose our technological supremacy to China. We trained their PhDs and then kicked them out with our stupid immigration policy, then we cut the funding for our own scientific research at hte same time China is dumping large amounts in to it. As a percent of GDP, we are down to around 0.5% of GDP going to ALL scientific research (both defense and non-defense related), in the 1970s it was around 1.5%. This research is important because fundamental science research is a casualty of business. In the past it has mostly occured either at universities or in the labs of a monopoly like Bell Labs. As an unintended consequence of breaking up the Bell monopoly, it also killed off one of the most productive labs in history. Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, and the programming languages C, C++, and S. C/C++ beget Java, Unix beget Linux and Android, information theory beget EVERYTHING tech related, the transistor needs no explaining, etc. Eight Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories. Basically modern life as we know it would be very different if not for Bell Labs. Part of the reason this lab existed was because Bell was a monopoly and it could afford to divert money into these, it didn't need to worry about next year's upcoming competitor. It could take a more long term investment picture. I'm not advocating monopolies but saying that business itself is not conducive to long term heavy-lifting required types of scientific research. They by nature, have to be VERY short-sighted because the nature of competition being what it is. The only other options are domestic government support with it being done in Universities with it then being commercialized OR let it be done in another country that will fund it.

[Darrell KSR]

I received a $500 scholarship to go to ULM each semester. I paid tuition and books with it and had pocket money left over every semester.

Of course, back then greens fees at golf courses were all under $10, too. Cheap enough I could play every day in the summer at the local 9-hole municipal course. I want to say something like $2.75 and the pro would let us play all day on that. It was $1 more if you wanted to rent a pull cart.

[Darrell KSR]

To give a little more specificity.

In 1978-82, when I went to college, the cost of tuition at ULM (then Northeast Louisiana University) was $265 per semester, give or take a little. Books added another $100-150, depending on the semester.

Today: ULM tuition is still very "inexpensive," but instead of $265 per semester, it's $3829 per semester. Books are estimated at $1220 per semester, so it's a $5k per semester deal; it was $375-400 when I attended.

I had a Foundation Scholarship. The equivalent scholarship they give today appears to be a $6500 annual scholarship award. So rather than walking around with money in their pocket, they're having to come up with $3500 on their own. Now, that doesn't count living expenses, including housing.

I was broke, my parents couldn't afford anything to help me in school, so I lived at home. Fortunately, it was just 3 miles from campus. Home cooked meals, I bought my own brand new car from my work, etc. I had it made. Yeah, I missed out on a little.

Back to the point. NLU-ULM tuition/books increased from about $800 per year (two semesters--I always took the summer off to work and to coach baseball) to $10,000 per year.

My law school is where I decided to go into debt. I attended Tulane Law School, and paid my own way there as well. That. Was. Tough.

Tuition for Year # 1 was $6500 per year. That did not include my apartment rent, food, etc. I had a $1500 scholarship that reduced it to $5000. The rest came out of my savings and work I did during law school (I violated the school rule against working your freshman year. They knew I was doing it, because I worked in the law school library. I did closing shift each night, because it paid $0.50 an hour more, and because between 9pm-midnight, it slowed down and I could study on the job. Not a bad gig, maybe the best job I ever had.

2nd year it increased to $8,000 per year. No scholarship increase.
3rd year it increased to $10,500 per year. Due to persistent writing of my local legislators for three years, from before going to Tulane to every year there, I was awarded a legislative scholarship. Every legislator in the state of Louisiana has a legislative scholarship to Tulane--full tuition and fees. No requirements. Candy they can give out. If Lawson Swearingen had not come through with that scholarship, I don't know that I could have made tuition my final year. Upon graduation, Tulane raised tuition to $12,000 per year the year after I graduated. So from 1982 to 1986, it increased from $6500 to $12,000. Talk about going at the right time.

Today, tuition there is $51,010 a year. Add books, room and board, and Tulane estimates the annual cost at just a tick under $70,000 per year.

Are you kidding me? And that's for undergraduates as well as graduate school. More than $200,000 for a 3-year law degree, but almost $300,000 for a four year degree. If you do like most do these days, and get your four year degree in five years, it would be $350,000.

I don't know what all the education solutions are. Maybe they are exactly where they need to be. I enjoy reading the viewpoints expressed here, reading from a position of ignorance. But I am thankful my three oldest children chose very sensible educational solutions, although all of them went away to college, they attended in-state public schools that were reasonably affordable (all things considered).

I have two more on the horizon. My next one will be the "problem" one. I already eat Ramen noodles. What's cheaper than that to eat? Water?

[Doc]

And when Uncle Sam comes in a pays for college, does one believe the costs will go up or down? I'm not talking about what you will pay but rather what it will actually cost. Lets not pretend that stuff is free. Its not. Nothing is free. It might not cost you anything but somebody pays for it. So if the cost of an education today is $10,000 a year and next year the government is paying for it from tax dollars, does anybody believe the cost will go down, OR will universities suddenly see a cash cow in a very deep pocketed, happy to spend money federal government? Personally, I see a government that paid almost $400,000 to study swedish massage on rabbits, or $850,000 teaching mountain lions to walk on treadmills, so I'd full expect them to spend billions of dollars unwisely and the schools to take full advantage of that and RAISE the cost of education. Same reason the cost went up in the 80's when the gov't got more involved.

[Catonahottinroof]

To piggy back on that thought, the bills my daughter is generating at $54,000 per year for tuition and board, books, lab fees etc at $12,000 per year. 10 years ago that same bill per year was roughly $18,000 per the research I've done. The increase over the last 10 years is purely do to government guarantees on the financing in my opinion. It's insane should you get a useless degree, and partially insane even if you get a useful one.


To give a little more specificity.

In 1978-82, when I went to college, the cost of tuition at ULM (then Northeast Louisiana University) was $265 per semester, give or take a little. Books added another $100-150, depending on the semester.

Today: ULM tuition is still very "inexpensive," but instead of $265 per semester, it's $3829 per semester. Books are estimated at $1220 per semester, so it's a $5k per semester deal; it was $375-400 when I attended.

I had a Foundation Scholarship. The equivalent scholarship they give today appears to be a $6500 annual scholarship award. So rather than walking around with money in their pocket, they're having to come up with $3500 on their own. Now, that doesn't count living expenses, including housing.

I was broke, my parents couldn't afford anything to help me in school, so I lived at home. Fortunately, it was just 3 miles from campus. Home cooked meals, I bought my own brand new car from my work, etc. I had it made. Yeah, I missed out on a little.

Back to the point. NLU-ULM tuition/books increased from about $800 per year (two semesters--I always took the summer off to work and to coach baseball) to $10,000 per year.

My law school is where I decided to go into debt. I attended Tulane Law School, and paid my own way there as well. That. Was. Tough.

Tuition for Year # 1 was $6500 per year. That did not include my apartment rent, food, etc. I had a $1500 scholarship that reduced it to $5000. The rest came out of my savings and work I did during law school (I violated the school rule against working your freshman year. They knew I was doing it, because I worked in the law school library. I did closing shift each night, because it paid $0.50 an hour more, and because between 9pm-midnight, it slowed down and I could study on the job. Not a bad gig, maybe the best job I ever had.

2nd year it increased to $8,000 per year. No scholarship increase.
3rd year it increased to $10,500 per year. Due to persistent writing of my local legislators for three years, from before going to Tulane to every year there, I was awarded a legislative scholarship. Every legislator in the state of Louisiana has a legislative scholarship to Tulane--full tuition and fees. No requirements. Candy they can give out. If Lawson Swearingen had not come through with that scholarship, I don't know that I could have made tuition my final year. Upon graduation, Tulane raised tuition to $12,000 per year the year after I graduated. So from 1982 to 1986, it increased from $6500 to $12,000. Talk about going at the right time.

Today, tuition there is $51,010 a year. Add books, room and board, and Tulane estimates the annual cost at just a tick under $70,000 per year.

Are you kidding me? And that's for undergraduates as well as graduate school. More than $200,000 for a 3-year law degree, but almost $300,000 for a four year degree. If you do like most do these days, and get your four year degree in five years, it would be $350,000.

I don't know what all the education solutions are. Maybe they are exactly where they need to be. I enjoy reading the viewpoints expressed here, reading from a position of ignorance. But I am thankful my three oldest children chose very sensible educational solutions, although all of them went away to college, they attended in-state public schools that were reasonably affordable (all things considered).

I have two more on the horizon. My next one will be the "problem" one. I already eat Ramen noodles. What's cheaper than that to eat? Water?

[bigsky]

Yeah, Two-lane U aint reasonable.

But Montana State U is $8100/ in state tuition fees and books.

Good Engineering school, too

[Doc]

We all pay taxes, good on you for running a successful business I respect you for that. But as usual, you are eager to put words in my mouth I never ONCE said free, I DID say that costs had gotten heavily out of hand. I don't get free anything, nor do I want it. I have paid my share and still am, what I want is for those that follow me to not get screwed as they are right now. I left school with a masters degree in Chemistry with $43,000 in debt (and tuition has gone up even worse since I graduated) and discovered entry level jobs in chemistry pay around $35-40k/yr at the time. This is with working 20hr weeks during the school year and full time over the summer. Around 1/4 of my current monthly take-home income goes solely to my student loans. The 1970s were even MORE favorable for you, higher relative minimum wage AND lower college tuition. In 1972 tuition for the YEAR was around $1800 (in 2015 dollars), the cost is NOW $10,000/yr (these are for UK) and that is before even discussing books and other required materials (books have seen a similar rise in cost). So cut the crap on how BAD you had it back then. You have the usual "F*** you I got mine, you don't get yours" kinda attitude. In th 1970s you could work around 300 hours (around 8 weeks, doable in a summer) at 1970s minimum wage and pay for college. Currently, it is at 32 weeks and rapidly climbing many mid-range schools it is actually impossible now. Quite simply, someone could work full time the whole year and go to school for one semester. That is the only way they can do it if thhey don't have rich family members and don't want to take on debt. Pell grants have been slashed, tuition is sky high, books and other required fees are through the roof. I don't care how it is done, whether it is a national cap on tuition prices or subsidies, or what but at this rate, MANY people not from wealthy families are drowning in college debt. To make matters worse, most jobs with any advancement anymore require AT LEAST a BS degree.

None of this even begins to discuss room and board or food. If you want to sleep somewhere and eat, add more weeks to these totals.

Unfortuantely, cutting students able to go to college won't work because the job market won't bear it. All of the manual labor factory jobs are GONE. There just isn't many options left like there was before the 1970s and 80s happened.

EDIT: Removed ad hominem remark.

I actually started 3 or 4 attempts to reply to this post and either got interrupted or sidetracted. Once my tablet shut down. Perhaps it was karma. Who knows. I will say in preface that I don't want to this to be taken as anything negative or antagonistic so if it sounds as such, please accept my apology now.

When somebody says they have a $43,000 dollar debt for an education, to me that doesn't seem unreasonable. Maybe thats because I see an education as something of EXTREME VALUE. Personally I see it as something more valuable than say an entry level Mercedes Benz, but that's me. I see an education as an investment. If one were to take that money and invest it today, what would be your ROI in say 10 years? Would it double? Maybe. Now has that 43K investment in education, what has that done as far as your earning potential done? Has that masters in chemistry increased your earning potential by 10K a year? 20K a year? Lets say its $10,000 per year. Sounds like a solid investment when you take it out 40 years of employment. As for the debt on a student loan, I always find it odd. As a tax payer, I'm often chided when I complain about having to pay significant taxes in that I shouldn't complain, that I should be happy to pay them because in order to pay them I have to have a job. Yet you're ONE TIME $43K student loan is pretty much what you're complaining about? And I mean this example wise. Student love to complain about this yet its one time. Try paying that yearly, every year that you work....then have folks tell you that you should be happy to pay that because you have a job because that is pretty much what I incur every year. However it isn't $43K. This year you can multiply that by several times. Granted I sold my business and am taking a huge huge one time hit but still, I'm lucky? Good thing I have the governments help, right? Because if the government wasn't helping me, odds are I'd be in pretty bad shape. (DWS). It is OFFENSIVE when liberals claim the government is in any way responsible for my success. They are not. The roads I use are roads I paid for. The education I received is something I paid for (but we are off subject).
The other things I've noted about student loan debts: the ones who complain loudest about them usually are 1) students who are not yet in the work force 2) unemployed recent grads who have worthless degrees (like degrees in literature, fine arts, music, anthropology/archaeology, photography, religious studies, liberal arts, PE, History, any language) 3) politicians trying to get elected. Those who are not complaining are folks who have used their education to obtain valued degrees in order to get good paying jobs! I've yet to meet a doctor or lawyer who complains about his student loans. You seldom hear about the employed Yale, Harvard or Duke grad complain about his or her student loans.
Third, on a student loan, I'm not sure what the issue with paying it back is. Lets look at your 43K loan. I've always advocated a gov't backed student loan program thru private banks. Have the bank issue the loan at a low rate (3.5%) over a long period (20 year?) but backed by the federal gov't. On a 43K student loan, that equates to roughly $250 per month. To me, that type of investment doesn't seem like a lot. I've also found that when you pay for something, you actually give a damn about it. Its called "skin in the game". Nowdays, everybody wants something for free. Nobody wants to work for anything. Would it be nice to come out of college with no debt? Sure. It would also be nice to be married to a 20 year old nymphomanic gymnast, but we don't live in fantasy land.

[Doc]

To piggy back on that thought, the bills my daughter is generating at $54,000 per year for tuition and board, books, lab fees etc at $12,000 per year. 10 years ago that same bill per year was roughly $18,000 per the research I've done. The increase over the last 10 years is purely do to government guarantees on the financing in my opinion. It's insane should you get a useless degree, and partially insane even if you get a useful one.

My son starts college this fall. We did the pre-pay and will make it work however we need to. My daughter is likely going to grad school in the fall as well. We will also make that work. Would we like have the government pay for it? Sure however we are smart enough to know that when we say "free" we know that free isn't free. Free means the 50% won't pay (meaning the 50% that isn't me) so I'll have to pay thru more taxes to pay for MY KIDS as well as somebody else's kids, plus pay for the government inefficiency/waste and the new found university inefficiency/waste that comes with government programs.

[Catonahottinroof]

My daughter will commit to the military(any branch) as a commissioned officer for 8 years. In return for that commitment, Uncle Sam will eat the college debt. As a bonus to that situation, the government sees her as an active duty soldier beginning at day 1 at The Citadel. That means she will have 12 years of service at the end of her 8 year commitment. Another 8 year(or 2 four year re-ups) after that and she has a military retirement at 38 years of age and the ability to carry on in the military or start a career of her choosing with The Citadel on her resume, and leaving the military as a Lt. Colonel as a minimum. I still need to remind her from time to time that she has the world by the tail.

My son starts college this fall. We did the pre-pay and will make it work however we need to. My daughter is likely going to grad school in the fall as well. We will also make that work. Would we like have the government pay for it? Sure however we are smart enough to know that when we say "free" we know that free isn't free. Free means the 50% won't pay (meaning the 50% that isn't me) so I'll have to pay thru more taxes to pay for MY KIDS as well as somebody else's kids, plus pay for the government inefficiency/waste and the new found university inefficiency/waste that comes with government programs.

[Doc]

My daughter will commit to the military(any branch) as a commissioned officer for 8 years. In return for that commitment, Uncle Sam will eat the college debt. As a bonus to that situation, the government sees her as an active duty soldier beginning at day 1 at The Citadel. That means she will have 12 years of service at the end of her 8 year commitment. Another 8 year(or 2 four year re-ups) after that and she has a military retirement at 38 years of age and the ability to carry on in the military or start a career of her choosing with The Citadel on her resume, and leaving the military as a Lt. Colonel as a minimum. I still need to remind her from time to time that she has the world by the tail.

Yes, that is a great option. One that works for many. Me, I had parents who made a commitment to 5 children to pay for their education. I made an additional commitment to get a master's degree, and paid for that myself by working summers in the school as Darrell did. That involved preparing dog, goat and horse cadavers for anatomy class, and it was something that if I had my druthers I would not have done but I did it to avoid debt. Imagine having to do that all summer long in the Alabama heat! Additionally, there were other projects the anatomy or histology dept had us do. Likewise I made a similar commitment to my kids to pay for their education. I figure I created them and owe them whatever it take to prepare them for their future. I don't owe it to anybody else's kids. That is their responsibility. For me, I don't tell others how to raise their kids. I don't tell them how to prevent their kids. I don't tell them whether to abort their kids. I don't tell them who they can or can't marry. ETC. None of that is my business. Likewise it not my business to pay for them either.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

During that time I employed dozens if not hundreds of people who in turn paid taxes as well. As a small business, I didn't get any of the "nice tax breaks" to which you refer. In actuality I have had to pay some rather ridiculous taxes based on my profession each and every year. Some of which I'd consider bizarre, other that border on extortion, so please don't pretend to understand my business or how the government regulates me or my business. You don't have the faintest clue about it But thats another matter. I pay my fair share PLUS some to cover the roughly half of the population that pays NO INCOME tax. Yes, everybody benefits from the government, its just that some, myself included, pay for it while many don't and those prefer to suckle off its teat. I guess I'm suppose to be thankful because I have a job. As I stated, I took no government HANDOUT or HELP. There were no goverment bailouts for me or my business. I took a private loan to purchase my business and paid it off with my money. As a business owner, I have no unemployment benefits were it to go under. I have a private disability policy that I pay for. My insurance policies are mine, paid for by me, not Uncle Sam. My college paid for by my parent and a private student loan which I paid back in full. My retirement is funded by me (Oh, I put into Social Security but I'm not counting on that). So the "benefits" the goverment provided, like roads, etc... are things I PAID for with my tax dollars so they are things I actually purchased rather than handouts. Understand?

Oooh. I must have hit a sore spot.

Yeah, I get it. Typical entitlement viewpoint. Entitlements aren't limited to welfare programs and the poor, including those that have figure out how to scam the system(by the way is not representative of all those that are beneficiaries of entitlements) It also encompasses the wealthy and successful that feel they pay too much in taxes that have also played the system to their benefits.

You have proven my point by acknowledging that all people benefit from government. A fundamental difference between you and me is that YOU have decided that you have paid enough taxes. YOU have determined that the government takes more from YOU than the benefits that you receive. YOU feel that those that are basically incapable of paying INCOME taxes, after having to pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes are not carrying their "fair share".

I sense that you carry a thought that wealth creators are carrying too much burden. I believe that taxation should about an ability to pay. Poor people don't have that ability, but you want them to pay more and take less. Very humanitarian of you. Do you carry the same view about the wealthy who continue to abuse the system too? Somehow I don't feel like that's much of a concern to you. I could be wrong, but I'll let you to speak to that.

Finally, I never "pretended" to understand your business, and even said so in my statement. However, I understand small business, large businesses, corporate business, tax and financial implications, and pretty much anything else.

[KeithKSR]

Oooh. I must have hit a sore spot.

Yeah, I get it. Typical entitlement viewpoint. Entitlements aren't limited to welfare programs and the poor, including those that have figure out how to scam the system(by the way is not representative of all those that are beneficiaries of entitlements) It also encompasses the wealthy and successful that feel they pay too much in taxes that have also played the system to their benefits.

You have proven my point by acknowledging that all people benefit from government. A fundamental difference between you and me is that YOU have decided that you have paid enough taxes. YOU have determined that the government takes more from YOU than the benefits that you receive. YOU feel that those that are basically incapable of paying INCOME taxes, after having to pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes are not carrying their "fair share".

I sense that you carry a thought that wealth creators are carrying too much burden. I believe that taxation should about an ability to pay. Poor people don't have that ability, but you want them to pay more and take less. Very humanitarian of you. Do you carry the same view about the wealthy who continue to abuse the system too? Somehow I don't feel like that's much of a concern to you. I could be wrong, but I'll let you to speak to that.

Finally, I never "pretended" to understand your business, and even said so in my statement. However, I understand small business, large businesses, corporate business, tax and financial implications, and pretty much anything else.

I think you missed his point completely.

Small businesses bear the brunt of taxation, big corporations have fled the country due to the world's highest corporate tax rate.

[Doc]

Oooh. I must have hit a sore spot.

Yeah, I get it. Typical entitlement viewpoint. Entitlements aren't limited to welfare programs and the poor, including those that have figure out how to scam the system(by the way is not representative of all those that are beneficiaries of entitlements) It also encompasses the wealthy and successful that feel they pay too much in taxes that have also played the system to their benefits.

You have proven my point by acknowledging that all people benefit from government. A fundamental difference between you and me is that YOU have decided that you have paid enough taxes. YOU have determined that the government takes more from YOU than the benefits that you receive. YOU feel that those that are basically incapable of paying INCOME taxes, after having to pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes are not carrying their "fair share".

I sense that you carry a thought that wealth creators are carrying too much burden. I believe that taxation should about an ability to pay. Poor people don't have that ability, but you want them to pay more and take less. Very humanitarian of you. Do you carry the same view about the wealthy who continue to abuse the system too? Somehow I don't feel like that's much of a concern to you. I could be wrong, but I'll let you to speak to that.

Finally, I never "pretended" to understand your business, and even said so in my statement. However, I understand small business, large businesses, corporate business, tax and financial implications, and pretty much anything else.



Nope. Clearly your reading comprehension is lacking

I'm sick of the idea that my taxes level is inadequate. I sick of the assumption that my annual check to the US government well into the 5 figures (or this year well into the six figures) is somehow inadequate and that I should feel guilty for not bearing "my fair share". Somehow folks bitching about a student loan of $43,000 that they incur ONCE in their lifetime debt that allows them to earn a salary for the rest of their life is a horrible tradegy but when people complain about a recurring annaul hit of two, three or four time that EACH AND EVERY YEAR are seen as bad people who are not willing to do their civic duty.

All people benefit from the government but a small percentage pay for the majority of it, and its a shame that that small majority is constantly made to feel that they don't do enough by those who don't pay any or who pay far less. You imply the gov't gave or helped me. They didn't. I EARNED everything I got. Everything the government provided me was PAID FOR by my tax dollars. I have no issue with paying taxes. I have never had an issue with it. Personally I believe every individual should pay taxes because when that happens then and only then will there be a true concern on how our money is spent and wasted. But the idea that my success is because of the government is a pile of liberal ****, and they can take that and shove it so far up their ass that I don't ever want to see it or smell it again. My success is because I was willing to live in a trailer in rural Alabama while my wife lived in Oregon so we could make ends meet. I spent countless hours studying. We lived on hot dogs and Mac and cheese for years and purchased rejected foods liked dented cans because they were cheaper. We didn't own a house or have insurance once she left her job to raise our kid. I took a job working 6pm to 8am because it paid an extra 2K a year then moved to FL because of the opportunity. I took a loan to buy a business and paid it back...none of which the gov't helped with. That is the story of my success. The gov't had NOTHING to do with it.

[Doc]

I wanted to add after "stewing" :050: over it last night:

1) Liberal politicians in general, complain about the loopholes the the millionaire and billionaire take advantage of. They constantly blame them for not paying enough taxes. The rich didn't write the laws. The politicians did. Those would be politicians like Charlie Rangle, who cheats on his taxes in order to pay less. Or the Clintons who write off used underwear donations! And yes, there are Republicans too. But the point is some of the laws were created by the Congress for their benefit and the benefit of their friends.

2) many of the laws are there to establish equity. Many of the tax breaks given to the lower income are not received by "the rich". Without ways to keep taxes on the wealthy reasonable, the people will find other ways to keep their money. Most rich people are smart or have smart people work for them. If the government want to take too much of their money they will find methods to keep such as exiting this country. When that happens, the collected tax of $0 isn't a whole lot

3) Small businesses get no tax breaks or incentives. Large ones do for good reason. A company that employees thousands generates millions in tax revenue by employeeing those people. If a city or state can incentivize a company to come, a tax break is worth it. That isn't the companies fault so quit blaming the business. They are looking for the best deal just like everybody else.

4) The left loves the "corporations pay no taxes" BS. My former business paid no annual income taxes because like most small business all profits were distributed to the owners who did pay taxes individually. My company rarely showed a profit hence didn't pay corporate taxes but there was nothing nefarious about it.

5) There are three ways to address a shortcoming of cash/debt. Either you spend less, collect more or a combination of the two. What I find irritating is when people who are carrying none of the burden complain because those who are are not carrying enough. This is akin to the stone worker who is sitting on his ass complaining because I'm only carrying 100lbs.

Now I understand you likely understand all this. By the tone of your reply you seem to feel I'm upset, or as you say you hit a sore spot. Not the case. Perhaps you read it that way because you would expect me to be touchy. Most people are after they have been asked to give money, paid their taxes and then repeated hammered for not doing their civic duty. Then on top of that they are suppose to thank the government because they have a job and because somehow the government helped them be successful. IMO I was successful DESPITE the government

[kingcat]

For all of it's flaws the system works as well as any as long as there is a balance between liberal and conservative views. each has a dark side on the extreme left and right...and one is NOT better than the other.

There are two entities that I believe have the will and ability to destroy our freedom. They are corporate power ( including pharmaceuticals) and the military industrial complex. Each are fueled without concern for the American people or individual freedoms, and each are capable and practiced at great deception.

Keep those in check and we survive along with our vote. Side with them and one day there will be no vote or individual freedom to concern ourselves with.
How that may or may not relate to this discussion is up to you folks. But I will not believe otherwise nor ever support those who profit by dividing opinions and fueling hate.

And the idea that the poor corporations were forced to operate outside of this country because of unfair taxation at home is a huge farce. It's because profit outweighs patriotism at nearly all levels.

We are not a struggling people...but we are a spoiled and pampered nation at this point.

And soon the God I trust will return and do away with everything we've accumulated and assume divine authority over us all. If we believe that, we prepare and hope for it.

If you don't believe that then there is a division here that cannot be bridged imo. Because, understandably so, profit then assumes the vacuum and the role of god.

As Dylan said, "everybody has to serve somebody"

Might be a rock'n' roll adict prancing on the stage
Might have money and drugs at your commands, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.