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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (58298)	1/30/2009 12:34:12 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224759

Senate's 'Gang of 14' May Be Poised to Strike Again, Over Stimulus Bill The 'Gang of 14' compromise in 2006 displeased many conservatives -- now, with Democrats in power, a similar compromise may be brewing for Obama's $819 billion economic stimulus bill By Trish Turner FOXNews.com Thursday, January 29, 2009 foxnews.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (58298)	1/30/2009 12:48:29 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224759

Bill allots millions to Filipino vets abroad Stimulus funds reward service to U.S. during WWII Stephen Dinan (Contact) Friday, January 30, 2009 Senators say their goal is to stimulate the U.S. economy, but the Senate's economic recovery package spends up to $198 million in lump-sum payments to aging Filipino veterans of World War II -- two-thirds of whom don't live in the U.S. and are unlikely to be pumping much money into the economy.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (58298)	1/30/2009 12:48:59 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 224759

What you are missing is where the money is coming from it is simply being taken our of the hands of one person and given to another. In the end there is no additional buying power added to the economy, nor is there any productivity added. So where is the gain. Of course the bankers are happy because we end up even more ind debt and they are just rubbing their greedy little hands. This is stupid as was the Bush Tarp plan. Think boldly. Why do we need the fed to lend money our government could create without them? They just suck the blood from us. lj

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (58298)	1/30/2009 12:49:16 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

Lawsuit challenges Clinton eligibility State department officer claims Constitution bars Obama appointee from serving January 30, 2009 By Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily worldnetdaily.com A State Department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve. Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C, on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel. Rodearmel, a resident of Virginia, maintains Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he cannot serve under her because doing so would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. "This is not a partisan, political or personal issue," Rodearmel said in a statement. "I have faithfully served under six prior Secretaries of State of both parties, and under eight Presidents since first taking the oath to uphold the Constitution as a young Army officer cadet. … As a commissioned State Department Foreign Service Officer, a retired Army Reserve Judge Advocate Officer, and as a lawyer, I consider it my Constitutional duty to bring this case to the courts." The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term. The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." As WND has reported, James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments where legislators created salaried positions – or increased the salary of positions – and then secured appointments to the comfortable jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in Colonial and British government, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice. According to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times since Clinton began her second, six-year Senate term in January 2007. On Jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. In 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on Jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to $196,700. The complaint states, the court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case under Public Law No. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, allowing anyone aggrieved by an action of the U.S. Secretary of State to contest "the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the grounds that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution." The lawsuit acknowledges that Congress tried to shirk the constitutional exclusion with a "Saxbe fix," reducing the Clinton's salary to the level in effect before Jan. 1, but it states that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton's tenure in the U.S. Senate. …" Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said he hopes the lawsuit will send a loud and clear message to Republicans and Democrats. "This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with," he said. "Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (58298)	1/30/2009 3:06:18 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224759

Ken I will repeat this post just in case you missed it the first time.. You differ from the one and I just wanted to give you a chance to get on the wrong side of things again...like the one. :-) Course it might just really irk the one to have to admit tax cuts stimulate the economy...dems have much better control over people with higher taxes. IMO Ken, you stated...."Lorne, saving money does NOT stimulate the economy. That is why tax cuts are a poor way to stimulate the economy. Some of the money is saved rather than spent..... Holy crap ken somebody better tell king obama about this terrible mistake on his part..maybe you could clue him in? Economic Stimulus Tax Cut Package 2009 by Four Pillars on January 23, 2009 ...."President Obama has proposed an economic stimulus tax cut package for 2009 which contain about $275 billion worth of tax cuts to individual tax payers as well as businesses. The idea behind this money is to promote individual spending as well as business spending and job creation. The large amount of the tax cuts is partially due to the need to get Republican support for stimulus package."... four-pillars.ca