Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[tannji]

"To give you idea how big the problem is," said Laurence Kotlikoff, economics chairman at Boston University, who has written extensively on the subject, to close a $51 trillion fiscal gap, "you'd have to have an immediate and permanent 78 percent hike in the federal income tax."

 

These are not sums, but present-value figures, heavily discounted to show in today's dollars what it would cost to pay off the debt immediately. The International Monetary Fund estimates the gap at $47 trillion, the Brookings Institution at $60 trillion.

 

Good stuff... but I would point out that there is no one proposing to "pay off the debt immediately", so I dont think we will be seeing any 50 to 80% tax increases. Also, while the Democrats want to raise some taxes significantly, I dont remember reading anything about a significant portion of the potential windfall being allocated towards debt reduction. The democrats have usually been better at spending that money than using it in a fiscally conservative manner. The deficit decreased under Clinton, but he wasnt dealing with a recession, nor bailing out most of the major airlines, nor having to deal with repairing the country physically and emotionally from a major terrorist attack. Our Economy literally took PHYSICAL hits recently, and I rarely see that acknowledged when people criticize Bush for deficits, inflation, unemployement rates, or jobs lost to NAFTA. (Thank you Mr. Clinton)

 

Just for gits and shiggles, imagine if Bush hadnt come out strong on terrorism, and so irresponsibly spent so much money over seas.... could it be that our consumer confidence is largely based on the strong actions of the president? I think you can make an arguement that while Bush is weak domestically, his foreign policy has done far more good domestically thatn people are either aware of or willing to admit. Of course, I have been making that arguement since I was a teenager, silly me.

[johnc]

BTW... our current deficit at the most recent projection ($417B) is only the 17th largest in the history of the US as a percentage of GDP. The absolute number is the largest but our overall economy is has grown considerably.

 

Deficit spending is not a "bad" thing by itself. Its an effective fiscal tool that has been used in the US's past during every war. It was expected and approved by Congress repeatedly.

 

Hopefully we haven't forgotten that "war" thing again...

[Dan Baldwin]

Just for gits and shiggles, imagine if Bush hadnt come out strong on terrorism, and so irresponsibly spent so much money over seas.... could it be that our consumer confidence is largely based on the strong actions of the president

 

Is it just me, or does "strong" equate with "irresponsible, impractical, and totally counterproductive" these days? An administration "strong" on terrorism would've been on top of OBL BEFORE 9/11. And wouldn't have spent/be spending IMMENSE resources fighting a war against what was a NONTHREAT to us (contrast with the comparitavely MEAGER effort against those who actually attacked us, letting them GET AWAY!).

 

All I have to say to those who laud the administrations efforts against "terror" is, WTF?! These guys [the current administration] are immoral, hegemonic IDIOTS.

[johnc]

Is it just me

 

Its just you...

[tannji]

Manzanar? I dont recall any Japanese getting released with apologies from their camps due to mistaken identity or technical foul-ups.... and I think comparing the Patriot Act to the WWII camps is a little extreme. Ironically' date=' our current technology will probably prevent the Patriot Act from [i']becoming[/i'] another Manzanar. Nor do I see it as an admission of defeat. Perhaps you meant of failure? We certainly failed in a situation that perhaps we couldnt have suceeded, but should have done better in. Defeat is too all-incompassing, we lost a battle, but are still fighting the war, by my reckoning. I would MUCH rather apologise for violating some liberties later, than attend more funerals sooner. You are however correct in your assessment of where the Patriot Act will be constrained and repealed... in the courts. Thus my comparison to another "dark period" in our history, the interments and executions of the civil war. The courts eventually dealt with that security method as well.

 

 

Apologies? We paid them reparations. How much more of a Mea Culpa do you want? Mistaken identity is not the issue. A flat out violation of constitutional protections by a nation at war. How is that not directly relevant?

 

And yes, I mean “defeatâ€. As near as I can figure (and who knows what these nuts really want), the terrorists whole goal is to bring down our way of life. Like I said, I am overstating things, but aren’t we doing that when we knowingly turn our backs on our constitutional beliefs?

 

I would MUCH rather apologise for violating some liberties later, than attend more funerals sooner.

 

You are unnecessarily limiting yourself. Why not avoid the funerals and not have to issue any apologies in the process? We are more than capable of doing both. Part of the problem was being alerted to the threat. I get a little peeved at the second guessers who want to blame someone other than the terrorists for 9/11 (not saying you are one of those, because you obviously are not). Before 9/11 we were a peace time nation (more or less). Now we are fully mobilized and alert to the threats. The fact that the courts will be the ones to overturn the act, and everyone knows it, must also show that those same people know it is a violation of the constitution.

 

People keep bringing up past transgressions during times of war to show this is to be expected and thus somehow OK. I keep bringing them up as a warning so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. Just because we did it “wrong†before (a very subjective statement) doesn’t mean we should do it the same way again.

 

One last thing. “Our current technology†is the one thing that scares the ever loving bejesus out of me. If anything we need to strengthen and better define some of our laws to better deal with how powerful the information revolution has become.

 

You know one of these days I need to start on my V8 swap so I can spend more time in the other forums.

 

You made my point very well. There are situations where the dirty deed gets done, and we make reparations later. We bombed Europe nearly into the stone age, then rebuilt it. We imprisoned and then made reparations to the Japanese. We are attempting to rebuild Iraq. It is all well and good to say we should have recognized the threat and prevented it, but with Bush taking the flak for actions AFTER the fact, just how well do you think it would have flown if Bush invaded ANYONE in the middle east as a "preventative measure"??? Our Iraqi campaign IS a preventative measure, and while it will be messy and painful, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Korea, and Iran are most definitely taking notes. So is Russia for that matter. You make the assertion that we should have and could have prevented (sic) 9-11, but you dont make any reference to how that should have been done. Most of the ways that the "experts" seem to think we could have prevented it (more money spent on human intelligence assets, electonic intercepts, ect) were shot down either by Clinton or the democrats in the house and senate, not to mention the GOOD intel being downplayed or ignored do to political expediancy or naivete. Woulda, coulda, shoulda is well and good... but it doesnt bring anything to the table presently. Being scared of technology is fine, but it contradicts the stated belief in "prevention". Nothing comes for free, not even freedom and liberty. Every single major crisis in our history has required sacrifice, both financially as well as constitutionally. I really think it is time to take a step past the Patriot Act and its constitutional dangers for the moment. We have a long and successful track record of freedom and its preservation within our country, in spite of steps backwards during various critical points in our history. Have a little faith and PATRIOTISM, be willing to make some scary sacrifices here at home, as others are doing for us abroad. Then be vigilant and persistent in your fight for civil rights, after our freedom to do so is once again assured.

 

I almost feel the need to apologise for my narrow views, but that would mean compromising my own beliefs about the importance of our rights, and what we occasionally have to do to protect them. Our Founding Fathers felt no need to apologise for their views, nor the extreme steps they took to obtain the freedom we enjoy. So I will enjoy them, instead of taking them for granted.

 

I am such a dogmatist at times...... Sorry.

[JMortensen]

Good stuff... but I would point out that there is no one proposing to "pay off the debt immediately", so I dont think we will be seeing any 50 to 80% tax increases. Also, while the Democrats want to raise some taxes significantly, I dont remember reading anything about a significant portion of the potential windfall being allocated towards debt reduction.

 

EXACTLY. So they want a whole lot more of your money, then they want to use it to "create 10,000,000 jobs" which will probably mean 10,000,000 wheelchair bound greeters at the f'in Post Office (seriously what is with the damn handicapped greeters at the hardware store and the office supply store???)

 

How about they start stripping the gov't of departments that are not essential and FIRING all these unnecessary govt workers. That wouldn't make anyone happy in the short run, but if there was REALLY a need for these jobs the private sector would create them again and they could get re-hired by companies that want to turn a profit rather than by bloated bureacracies that want to get a bigger budget next year. Or they could just privatize a whole department of the govt and appoint a CEO and a board of directors and let them do the firing.

 

All I have to say to those who laud the administrations efforts against "terror" is, WTF?! These guys [the current administration] are immoral, hegemonic IDIOTS.

 

Your turn now: SHOW US SOME PROOF DAN!!!

[tannji]

yeesh, chill your jets, you are such a firebrand, Jmort......

[Heavy Z]

Deficit spending is not a "bad" thing by itself. Its an effective fiscal tool that has been used in the US's past during every war. It was expected and approved by Congress repeatedly.

 

You think these numbers are acceptable?!? LOL. Historcally, taxes are raised during wartime to help cover expenses for a good reason. We're daydreaming if we think we can have it both ways. I wish I could have a carefree attitude about such threats but jut blowing it off seems highly irresponsible. Do you think spending $400 bllion a year (and growing) just covering the INTEREST on the debt is sound planning? "Nothing but blue skies" was a popular song before the crash of 1929, so I'm not surprised...

 

Speaking of war, that is a term I wish people would STOP using out of context. You, I, and any other individual cannot declare war, no matter how many times your TV says it. Only congress can declare war, which they have not done yet. If this is such a crisis, then by all means let's have a declaration of war.

 

An administration "strong" on terrorism would've been on top of OBL BEFORE 9/11. And wouldn't have spent/be spending IMMENSE resources fighting a war against what was a NONTHREAT to us (contrast with the comparitavely MEAGER effort against those who actually attacked us, letting them GET AWAY!).

 

Sad but true. Based on our efforts it seems we care little about actually capturing Bin Laden, at least not while we're busy fantasizing over Iraq. This flash cartoon sums it up:

 

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/rememberthree.html

[EvilRufusKay]

I am glad I spend my time working on my car and not watching the news.

 

I know I am opening up for those who will call me names for not giving a hoot but those in power will do what they want when they want. I have way to many things to worry about that I actually have control over to waste my time worrying about these. The gov't could always do the intrusive things that were pointed out in the begining of this thread. The only difference is that now they can do it in the open.In the end it is really no different.

[tannji]

I wont label you, in the end it always comes down to personal choice. It may seem counter-intuitive given my comments, but I have not voted very often. I seem to either not have a candidate I want to vote for, or the election turns out to be a foregone conclusion. An exception should have been the last presidential election, where I wanted to vote, but put it off and ended up not being able to.... Imagine the self-kicking I was doing as the votes were being tallied, lol. (I know, I am not in Florida, but it still makes you wince)

I will also be voting this election.... but it feels like a vote against Kerry and his baggage a little more than it does a vote for Bush. Voting is not something that fills me with anticipation, at least not the positive kind.

 

You are right tho.... someone is going to be looking over your shoulder no matter what you do, I have no major concerns about it. I keep my nose clean, and dont sweat the small stuff. In response to the inevitable responses, should it become somewhat of a larger concern, I will take a page from my parents book, and become a little more active in civil rights concerns. In the meantime, I already consider my civil rights and liberties to have been seriously violated on Sept 11. I dont expect a perfect response from my government, just an immediate and forceful one. News at 11:00.

[johnc]

Speaking of war, that is a term I wish people would STOP using out of context. You, I, and any other individual cannot declare war, no matter how many times your TV says it. Only congress can declare war, which they have not done yet. If this is such a crisis, then by all means let's have a declaration of war.

 

Semantics.

 

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war. These military engagements and process by which Congress authorized them are prefectly legal under our Constitution and have been tested via Supreme Court challenges every time - and passed.

 

Some examples:

 

Quasi-War against France in 1798

First Barbary War against the Barbary States in 1801

Second Barbary War against the Barbary States in 1815

Paraguayian Raid against Paraguay in 1859

Russian Civil War Intervention against Russia in 1918

Protection of Lbanon against Muslim rebels in 1959

Vietnam War against the National Liberation front in 1964

Restoration of Lebanon against Muslin extremists in 1982

Operation Just Casue agains the Panama Defense Force in 1989

Persian Gulf War against Iraq in 1991

War on Terrorism against the Taliban in 2001

Second Iraq War agaisnt Irag in 2003

 

The current Iraq war was authorized by Congress (H.J.Resolution 114) and passed with a vote of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. We are LEGALLY at war even if you don't want to believe it.

[Heavy Z]

The current Iraq war was authorized by Congress (H.J.Resolution 114) and passed with a vote of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. We are LEGALLY at war even if you don't want to believe it.

 

It's not about anything I want to "believe." With all due respect, that vote had nothing to do with declaring war but with allowing Bush the latitude to resolve the WMD issue. NOWHERE in 114 will you find a declaration of war, so lets not pretend like it says something it doesn't.

 

Do you know why the founders only wanted congress to declare war? Here's a quote from Lincoln on the subject:

 

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

 

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

 

 

Judging from what I'm hearing, maybe you'd feel more comfortable with a king than a president.

[Pop N Wood]

...I take a polygraph test and suffer an extesnive background investigation every five years.

 

Then somewhere in that process I am sure you take an oath or answer question affirming your commitment to uphold the constitution. You are not the only one who does such things. How do you reconcile that oath with your Oliver North interpretation of it's enforcement?

 

Trust us. Cut a few corners in time of war. I have nothing to hide, so why should I fear the government? It's alright if we squish a few little people as long as we apologize for it afterwards. Are you people listening to yourselves? Why do we even have a constitution? It is NOT to protect the bad guys. It is a living document with provisions to be changed if need be. If you don’t like it, change it, but don’t pretend it doesn’t mean what it does. We have enough other problems with that attitude right now.

 

We are not a nation of cowards. This situation simply does not warrant living in a police state. Once again an overstatement, but to listen to you people I can see how we can get there.

[johnc]

With all due respect, that vote had nothing to do with declaring war but with allowing Bush the latitude to resolve the WMD issue. NOWHERE in 114 will you find a declaration of war, so lets not pretend like it says something it doesn't.

 

And you missed the point of my post. I never said HR114 declared war. Congress has repeatedly (since 1789!) authorized the President and the military to legally conduct war without resorting to a formal declaration of war. There was even an attempt to codify this concept into law as Public Law 93-148 War Powers Resolution.

 

...The War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5().

 

Congress has given the President the power to wage war against the terrorists (in 2001) and against Iraq (in 2003). Both authorizations were through Congressional Resolutions and both did not include a declaration of war. Again, its recognized within the US and the UN that war can legally be conducted without a formal declaration of war.

[JMortensen]

Trust us. Cut a few corners in time of war. I have nothing to hide, so why should I fear the government? It's alright if we squish a few little people as long as we apologize for it afterwards. Are you people listening to yourselves? Why do we even have a constitution? It is NOT to protect the bad guys. It is a living document with provisions to be changed if need be. If you don’t like it, change it, but don’t pretend it doesn’t mean what it does. We have enough other problems with that attitude right now.

 

I know someone's going to say that this is not analogous, but I think it is:

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=716&e=12&u=/nm/20040914/pl_nm/russia_usa_dc

[johnc]

That's a great comparison John! Look what Russia is doing after experiencing ~400 casualties in a terrorist attack and compare it with what our Congress did (the Patriot Act) after we experienced ~2,700 casualties. This makes me feel even better about our country's restraint and democratic principles.

[JMortensen]

This makes me feel even better about our country's restraint and democratic principles.

 

Ummm.... that wasn't the intent.

[pparaska]

Just for gits and shiggles' date=' imagine if Bush hadnt come out strong on terrorism, and so irresponsibly spent so much money over seas.... could it be that our consumer confidence is largely based on the strong actions of the president[/quote']

 

Is it just me, or does "strong" equate with "irresponsible, impractical, and totally counterproductive" these days? An administration "strong" on terrorism would've been on top of OBL BEFORE 9/11. And wouldn't have spent/be spending IMMENSE resources fighting a war against what was a NONTHREAT to us (contrast with the comparitavely MEAGER effort against those who actually attacked us, letting them GET AWAY!).

 

Yes, like much of the US, the GW Bush administration (just like the Clitton one) didn't pay enough attention to the terrorists before 9/11. Even the 9/11 report said that even if they had paid more attention, 9/11 would have happened anyway. Unfortunately, 3000+ innocent people (not just Americans) had to die that day to wake the country up, and put the Patriot Act idea in motion, among other things.

 

Yes, we did let some of them get away. But there are so many operatives that we still have a bunch to go after - all over the world - which we have done by knocking out the pro-terrorist Taliban in Afghanistan and the oppressive WMD-loving regime in Iraq. Anyone who actually believes that Saddam had no designs on holding his neighbors and the west hostage with WMDs, I'll just say that you've been brain washed by the media. Remember, we told Saddam we were coming - isn't it possible he sold the WMDs to Syria? He used them on his own countrymen as well. That's what the press told us about it. Ever wonder what else he was up to with WMDs that the general public doesn't know about? Don't listen to the media - they mostly tell you lies, the reason being to get dollars, not to tell the public the truth. That's a sad state of affairs, but the media has done it to themselves over the past 20 years. They've become a puppet to the dollar and to the far left liberal wing. I trust the intelligence community alot more than I do the media - I've worked with many of them and they are to a person a very serious, principled bunch who bend over backwards to assess the threat as honestly and truthfully as possible.

 

As war as Saddam goes, he and his regime deserved to be taken out by the UN on human rights principles alone - never mind if he HAD WMDs the day we walked in to Iraq, or if he'd been violating UN accords and shooting at UN planes that overflew his country for the decade after Bush I bent to political pressure and didn't finish the job. Funny how all the bleeding heart liberals in this country and elsewhere forget that his regime was one of the longest running, cruelest regimes in history. No, the bleeding hearts whine and bitch about the Iraqi's (many of them militants) killed while we tore down that regime (something the UN should have done a decade ago).

 

The bleeding hearts whine and bitch about the Abu Graib prison abuses, which compared to what Saddams regime did there for decades rate as mere childhood pranks. The bleeding hearts and their media whine and bitche about the "atrocities" that a handful of US soldiers committed against prisoners - which amounted to nothing compared to what Saddam's regime did to many thousands over the years.

 

Do I condone what the US soldiers did? Hell no! Do I think it was blown out of proportion? Damned Right! It was headline fodder, and the media did a fine job making it look like the human rights atrocity of the last 100 years. To me, what's sad is how selective the bleeding hearts are about who they whine and bitch about. Never mind that Saddam's sons will never again reign the terror they did unchecked for decades. Never mind that other than the militants causing trouble there, the Iraqi people are closer to real freedom then they have been in 40 years. No, it was done under a Republican administration and the little baby bleedy heart liberals can't muster the character to say that was the right thing to do. They just bring up the "where are the WMDs" and "the horrible Abu Graib abuses by US soldiers" I say WTF!!!!

 

All I have to say to those who laud the administrations efforts against "terror" is, WTF?! These guys [the current administration] are immoral, hegemonic IDIOTS.

 

"immoral, hegemonic IDIOTS?" Whatever - summing up an entire complex organization of individuals who are running the government's executive branch with three words is disingenious. Do you really think they are that simple, that single minded? I believe they believe in what they are doing - waging a war at the sources of the terrorist front.

 

If socialist Europe,Canada,Mexico and the far left in this country would simply accept that we are in a WAR (sorry, under a republican administration, GET OVER IT), would help instead of hinder, the administations job of winning the war on terror would be easier. In Europe, the problem is one of an inferiority complex about the US (they hate everything we do on principle) and possible a matter of economics (France and Germany stood to lose money if Saddam was overthrown). As far as the far left in this country, they either think with their hearts and/or just hate that their guy didn't win in 2000 - politics in that case.

 

That's the way I see it in a nut shell - but I know it's even more complex than that. But three negative words - that doesn't add much to the argument.

 

I say WTF?!!!!

[pparaska]

EXACTLY. So they want a whole lot more of your money' date=' then they want to use it to "create 10,000,000 jobs" which will probably mean 10,000,000 wheelchair bound greeters at the f'in Post Office (seriously what is with the damn handicapped greeters at the hardware store and the office supply store???)[/quote']

 

Way off topic, but since you asked :

 

Hardware stores, office supply stores, computer stores, etc. have small high value items that walk off the shelves rapidly, and pass the register without being paid for. My Dad took a post-retirement job at Sears. They told him that over 50% of the merchandise (dollar wise) never gets paid for as it leaves the store.

 

To pay a handicapped individual to check your bag and receipt is just good business - making people know that they will be checked when they leave the store to see if they paid for what's in the bag. Unfortunately, stuff leaves in pockets too...

 

I'd rather have those businesses pay those handicapped people to keep their business more in the black than to have to pay some sort of wage for that person out of my taxes - which is what happens if the handicapped person can't get a job.

 

How about they start stripping the gov't of departments that are not essential and FIRING all these unnecessary govt workers. That wouldn't make anyone happy in the short run' date=' but if there was REALLY a need for these jobs the private sector would create them again and they could get re-hired by companies that want to turn a profit rather than by bloated bureacracies that want to get a bigger budget next year. Or they could just privatize a whole department of the govt and appoint a CEO and a board of directors and let them do the firing.[/quote']

 

Dead wood in the government is a problem - I've seen it with my own two eyes.

 

But getting rid of people just because today you have nothing really important for them to do is short sighted. Budgets come and go for certain things in the government. Letting highly trained, highly specialized people go because it looks glooming for their line of work this fiscal year is short sighted. When that expertise is once again sorely needed, many times it can't be found, because the government was the only user of that expertise. I've seen this happen in the US Navy R&D / Design community. The people they RIFfed had to find other kinds of work because the private sector knew there was no money TODAY for that line of expertise either. And when their expertise was needed again, it couldn't be found, inside or outside the government.

 

But the government has "reinvented government", thanks to Gore and his buddies, doing exactly what you say they should. Sometimes it's a good thing all around, if there is no government-only use for a line of work. Accounting is one example of this.

 

All I have to say to those who laud the administrations efforts against "terror" is' date=' WTF?! These guys [the current administration'] are immoral, hegemonic IDIOTS.

 

Your turn now: SHOW US SOME PROOF DAN!!!

 

Agreed!

[pparaska]

I almost feel the need to apologise for my narrow views, but that would mean compromising my own beliefs about the importance of our rights, and what we occasionally have to do to protect them. Our Founding Fathers felt no need to apologise for their views, nor the extreme steps they took to obtain the freedom we enjoy. So I will enjoy them, instead of taking them for granted.

 

Don't you DARE apologize! You have beliefs rooted in your research on the topics and you obviously have thought them through rigorously. Don't even kid about apologizing for that! How you grew up in a Leary-type commune and have come to this rational way of thinking things through BLOWS ME AWAY. If you ever write memoirs, I'd buy a copy.