Dan J

and Guantanamo still isn't closed.

Which was not due to a lack of will, congress didn't want to provide or accept any alternatives.

Exactly. They should use their money so more people don't have to work. That would give them more time to perfect their criminal skills. Too many dumb criminals today.

They are, its called automation and outsourcing.

I grew up poor I wore hand me downs for most of my childhood. This is something you seem never have gone through. There is a great deal of dignity for a child to walk into a classroom the first day of school wearing new clothes like the rest of his classmates. Walmart makes that possible for many of the poor children in this country. I just wish walmart was around when I was young.

It comes at a cost. Walmart pioneered many practices that increased efficiency of retail businesses, while it made products cheaper, it also eliminated jobs and pushed wages down.

Only a left wing loon would argue that more and more government spending is the key to job growth.

What company is going to create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts?

IN my opinion, the less taxes paid the less funding for Liberal mischief.

It's always telling how Libs obsess more about what people "don't" pay in to the system... than what others "DO" take out of the system.

It sucks that in a democracy that your taxes will go to things you don't agree with. Maybe you would like to see an Iranian style government instituted here in the US?

I've come to the conclusion in such that I dont see the government or private industry creating enough jobs to reduce the unemployment rate as well as handle future growth.

Private industry does not as its primary purpose create jobs. It does so more as a "side effect" of making money. While they will keep creating jobs in the future, increases in productivity, outsourcing, etc are going to ensure that the pace of job creation will be much lower than pace of wealth creation. There has been no time in the past where a company can make as much money as they can now with so few people.

The government can only create government jobs and can create jobs that are not purely driven by profit motivation. But the business elite has driven the Republican party to prevent the government from creating jobs outside of the DOD and defense contractors (Most of whom, profit quite handsomely from government spending)

So if private industry is not going to create jobs, and governments can't. Where are the jobs going to come from?

Over 3 million people on food stamps in CA. That's more than the total population of almost half of the states on the above list.

In this case absolute numbers are misleading.

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Friday, June 15, 2012 USDL-12-1184

--------------------------------------------------------------

United States (1) ...................| 8.2

|

Alaska ..............................| 7.0

Arkansas ............................| 7.3

California ..........................| 10.8

Delaware ............................| 6.8

District of Columbia ................| 9.3

Hawaii ..............................| 6.3

Iowa ................................| 5.1

Kansas ..............................| 6.1

Maine ...............................| 7.4

Maryland ............................| 6.8

|

Massachusetts .......................| 6.0

Minnesota ...........................| 5.6

Missouri ............................| 7.3

Montana .............................| 6.3

Nebraska ............................| 3.9

Nevada ..............................| 11.6

New Hampshire .......................| 5.0

New Jersey ..........................| 9.2

New Mexico ..........................| 6.7

North Carolina ......................| 9.4

|

North Dakota ........................| 3.0

Ohio ................................| 7.3

Oklahoma ............................| 4.8

Pennsylvania ........................| 7.4

Rhode Island ........................| 11.0

South Dakota ........................| 4.3

Texas ...............................| 6.9

Utah ................................| 6.0

Vermont .............................| 4.6

Virginia ............................| 5.6

|

West Virginia .......................| 6.9

Wisconsin ...........................| 6.8

Wyoming .............................| 5.2

--------------------------------------------------------------

Every state is different in the industries present and resources available. Some of it a state can control and some of it they can't. California in the software engineering sectors has very low unemployment, in fact many companies are paying talent to move to California. But then you look at other sectors and they are not so rosy. Its unlikely to be a good state labor cost sensitive industries (Manufacturing) as cost of living is higher than average.

Except that public employee unions clout is wholly funded by taxpayers, and by taking larger and larger portions of public employee salaries, they are diverting that money to lobbyists that urge government to spend even more money to grow the government payroll. Corporations do not.

Government contractors do the same thing, but few people complain about that. A good portion of the contract the company gets ends up going back to lobbying for more spending.

Anyone who thinks we're even remotely close to "peak car" has obviously never driven in Moscow. Or Seoul. Or Beijing. Or any number of foreign cities that were designed before the automobile became popular.

THe article is talking about the US. There are other places in the world where car sales is quite strong.

And?

You're for government subsidies or not?

The USF has several different goals. One of those include subsidizing telecommunications access for the poor. Considering that its difficult to get ahead in modern society without a phone, there is definitively a need for it. Unfortunately for the poor, internet access is becoming something that is difficult to live without.

The government should provide what ever is cheaper. In some areas it will probably be cell phones, an in other areas land lines. But with cell phone access, it should be limited to a very basic feature phone, with a subsidy of a certain number of prepaid minutes each month.

Not that I can see. Maybe I'm missing something. Please highlight any of your post the deals with wireless communications, spectrum allocation, or anything at all related to wireless access. And if you can find that anything that subsidizes wireless service.

Cell phones fall under telecommunications. In many areas cell phones are cheaper than plain old telephone lines.

That mentality is the exact problem. All those pennies add up to dollars.

When you are solving any problem, its best to go after the problems that will have the largest impact with the least amount of work. If the problem in this case is government spending, there are areas that can be addressed with much larger impact on government spending than this.

The wealthiest 5% pay 57% of all taxes. 47% of Americans pay no taxes.

How much more should the wealthy pay. ? I am confused ?

The rest of your statement is right on. The left and right are both wrong and spending has to stop

There is a reason why this has happened. The income of the lower income brackets in the US has stagnated or gone down. If you want them to pay more taxes, help them earn larger incomes.

The other large reason is that for many families, the child deductions and credits basically wipe out what little tax bill they have left.

As long as the income gap keeps growing, the wealthy are going to pay an ever larger share of all the taxes.

This was from CNN:

[updated at 10:16 a.m. ET] Kate Bolduan reports that the Chief Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.

[updated at 10:15 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court has upheld the entire health care law by a vote of 5 to 4, Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears said. That includes the medicare provision

[updated at 10:06 a.m. ET] In a landmark decision that will impact the nation for decades, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, ruling that requiring people to have health insurance violates the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts had noted that however that the mandate would have been struck down based on the commerce clause , saying it would "open a new and vast domain" for Congressional power.

CNN was running a breaking news headline that the mandate was struck down, now they changed it.

In just two weeks Obama has illegally given amnesty to illegal aliens by instating part of the dream act that our constitutionally elected Legislative branch voted down.

Today he basically told the supreme court, even though you found Arizona law constitutional, guess what? I will not enforce it.

I don't care where you stand on immigration, if you are a liberty loving American you should be beyond angry that our President has shreeded the constuion and is refusing to enforce the laws of this nation, despite the states pleas for help.

Shame on you and shame on the American people to allow Obama to buy votes with our constitution.

Before the socialist crowd gets started. Yes I know Bush sucked also.

The President has had deferred action powers since 1992. All he can really do is grant a stay on deportation, which does not grant permanent residency or citizenship. Like it or not, the Legislative branch is the one who gave him this power.

The Supreme Court is interestingly still majority conservative, but at least not all of them are nuts like you. The Constitution is the reason why most of the Arizona law was struck down.

Which basically makes it toothless. They can ask, but they cannot arrest a person for being out of status or an illegal alien; or fine a person for not carrying immigration documents. All they can do is let the federal government know, which makes it up to the federal government to do anything.

Its more or less a waste of time to pull over people suspected of immigration violations.

Does anyone thing that privatizing government services in which it creates a conflict of interest for the private provider is a good idea?

Prison operators want more people in prison for a longer period of time, defense contractors want more wars and larger DoD budgets, Etc.

I think the argument could be made that more privatization = bigger government because the private companies want to make more money.

I did not think that illegal aliens qualified for EAD cards but with a stroke of his mighty pen Obama fixed that.

The President has already had the power to do that. It looks like it was put in place in or around 1992. Its likely that it wasn't not the intended use of that power, but considering how broken congress is in getting important work done, you can't really blame a guy for using the tools he has.

Lawmakers to discuss Denver college's tuition rate

Published June 20, 2012

Associated Press

DENVER – Officials at a Denver college are scheduled to talk to Colorado lawmakers about a tuition rate they set for illegal immigrants that the state's Republican attorney general says is against the law.

Metropolitan State College of Denver's decision this month has drawn criticism from Republicans who rejected Democrats' legislation this session that also sought to make higher education less expensive for illegal immigrants.

The Joint Budget Committee is scheduled to talk with Metro State about the new rate Wednesday.

Attorney General John Suthers issued an opinion Tuesday, saying Metro State's unilateral decision is "not supported by governing law." He says lawmakers must decide whether to provide the benefit to illegal immigrants.

The new tuition rate lets certain illegal immigrants attend college at about $3,578 per semester. That's about half what they'd pay under the nonresident rate.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1ySScpLgc

On your subtitle on student loans, illegal aliens cannot qualify for financial aid or government backed loans. They could qualify for private aid, but that is up to the institution providing it.

Slim is partially right, folks. There is no Constitutional right to vote for President because the means for electing members of the Electoral College lies with the states. This was stated clearly in the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, 2000:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Merely quoting provisions from the Constitution to prove one's point is not always reliable, as the SCOTUS exists to interpret it, and that is where the laws and their applications are defined.

If we are talking about voting for president, then you are correct, the people don't elect the president. But there is more to voting than just the Office of the President.

The Constitution does indicate that the House of Representatives and Senate are chosen by the people. While it does not explicitly outline who can and can't vote. It does indicate several factors that can and cannot be used in that determination.

If there was no assumed right to vote, at a federal level, then those amendments would be rather pointless.

Not true. One of congress' jobs is to regulate the value of money.

The problems with Europe have nothing to do with the value of money, instead its a problem with the lack of a common budget and fiscal policy. In the US, the Federal Government redistributes money from the wealthy states to the poorer ones. If we were like Europe, the Federal Government would have little power to do so.

I am still not clear why a voter ID is discriminatory. Where I live, we were given the opportunity to register when we turned 18 through forms our high school history teacher gave us. Within a few weeks, they mailed me a voter card with my name, polling location and party affiliation on it. When we go to renew our driver's licenses we are given the opportunity again to register or change party affiliation. When I first voted, I had to show my card at the polling location, now that I have been voting at the same place for roughly 15 years, they don't ask anymore and know me by name. In addition, I work for a county government, we are required to be registered voters as a condition of employment. To put our picture on these cards would not be a huge deal. About 30% of my employer's workforce is African-American, they are not complaining about the fact we have to be registered to vote, So, I am failing to see the argument that it is racist or discriminatory, if it had our picture on it, as all have to go through or have the opportunities to the same process(here at least).

Most of these provisions while requiring an ID to vote, don't go out of their way to ensure that every citizen gets the necessary ID's. This is not a problem for most people, but there are a few groups of citizens who may find it difficult get the ID.

1. Homeless people who may not have a stable address.

2. Elderly people who may be lacking documentation such as birth certificates, as they were born at homes or outside of the system, which are often needed to get an ID.

3. Poor people who don't have the money or time to go through the extra hoops.

If these laws went out of their way to ensure that every citizen who wanted to vote was able to get an ID. They would probably find less resistance. But many of them don't which brings into question the motives, which are often about making it very difficult for certain groups to vote instead of protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately some pro voter ID groups have not help themselves by using racially charged advertising in support of the issue.

Ever notice how EBT cards don't have picture ID on them?

Are you presuming that only EBT card users would be disenfranchised by a Voter ID requirement?

None of that establishes a right to vote. It's alluded to. It's even assumed that the right to vote is present. But it's never established on a federal level. If you'll notice, every single mention (up until the amendments) of voting comes from the states through the legislature or electors. The founders did that on purpose. They never meant for "the people" to run the federal government because the federal government was never intended to be "over" the people. It was simply to coordinate the States.

If anything, the amendments open up the door to prohibit folks from voting in federal elections because it acknowledges voting is not an absolute right.

If the Federal Government is too weak, you basically end up with a currency union like the EU. We all know how well that is working.

99% of all gov't run programs would do better under a private for profit company. The US gov't was never set up to run these programs, nor was it ever given the power to do so in the constitution by the founding fathers. The one thing that the gov't does do well is also one of the few empwoerments it was given in the original constitution, and that is defense.

I think all people should be given a choice of whether or not they want to privatize their social security benefits or keep them as is and run by the gov't. and they reap the benefits accordingly.

The problem with privatizing social security is that its not a retirement savings plan. You are not saving money for your future use. Its that the current workers are paying for the current retirees.

This has the advantage of not being at the whims of the market.

No one is going to get wealthy from social security. But something that should be seen as a compliment of a private retirement savings plan. Should the market fail to provide a return on the private savings, social security will provide sort of a minimal backup.

Not to mention since Jan 2010, the graph shows the weakest, flattest recovery we've ever seen, with lots of ups and downs.

How much does that have to do with government? There has been a huge change in how private businesses work. They are much more efficient and getting much more efficient over time. With efficiency they need less workers.