Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (625590)	9/25/2004 12:38:53 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Yeah, so what? Washington is full of deficit spenders. (Just goes to show that Bush is no fiscal conservative. His discresionary spending increases --- after all defense costs are taken out --- are 50% higher then Clinton's.) Anyway, no one disputes that the tax code changes account for the largest chunk of the projected increases in the deficits... even when factoring in 'dynamic scoring'. Cutting rates is GOOD, but failing to reduce spending and forgone revenues (by eliminating tax loopholes, subsidies, 'special tax preference items', etc.) MORE then destroys the budgetary benefits --- as both CBO & OMB analysis show. (Also the same thing is predicted by the private econometrics firm the WH hired to use 'dynamic scoring' in the run-up to Bush's state-of-the-union speech. They CAN'T claim they weren't warned!) I never said I liked what he did. Nor do I like what effectively is an amnesty for illegals that he proposed. But the liberals are in no position to fault him for giving him what they have wanted for a long time. [Are you a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' if you stand up for the American Constitution?] "A company manufactures drugs and sells them to companies in its state ONLY. Should it be subject to FDA regulation? It itself engages ONLY in intra-state commerce." If it's not involved in inter-state commerce then the Feds have no authority under the inner-state commerce clause of the Constitution. The feds nevertheless claim jurisdiction because distributors MIGHT send it across state llines. This is exactly the same un-constitutional massive expansion of federal power that they are trying in two other areas: medical marijuana in states where it is legal (but which is not 'sold' --- thus no 'commerce' --- and which never crosses a state line... and with Oregon's assisted suicide law --- where the feds are trying to regulate what physicians can and cannot do....) CA has been butting heads with the feds for some years over medical marijuana, and Oregon over assisted suicide. The feds so far show no sign of retreating. If they have legal authority in ALL of these areas, then they have controlling authority in everything... and the States might as well disband their governments, because the feds can claim authority over all economic and non-economic actions. The federal gov't at this point HAS in fact claimed jurisdiction over everything. Like it or not. [Now try to get Cy to take this test.] "AFTER you teach him to read and write. :-) He uses a different Constitution than I. His is disposable at will." --- Funny. Also, seemingly supported by the evidence. The first 10 amendments are still in mine. They must have disappeared from his. His "Let's intern all the Democrats" violates several provisions of the Constitution- -provisions the Founders put in purposefully precisely to preven the sort of thing he wants.