Utah Reps call for Constitutional Convention

[PearlWatson]

Taking measures that reduce aggregate demand in the face of liquidity trap, such as curbing spending, is EXACTLY the wrong move and virtually guaranteed to worsen a recession.

Which suggests exactly the opposite mechanism you proposed earlier: that the debt ceiling should lower as the GDP increases. Obviously you've really thought this one out.

Of course a sliding scale like that would probably be kind of complex and we'd want some flexibility built in to deal with different types of unforeseen problems in the future. Maybe that Constitutional Amendment idea isn't the brightest for dealing with this kind of problem.

A nice piece of rhetoric and one that could have been copy-pasted from any number of debates. However, it's only tangentially relevant here.

so I'm guessing your formal economics training is pretty minimal.

Yeah, I haven't really thought about this before. I wasn't ready to just dismiss the entire convention idea or the reasons for it and so I tried to promote discussion by throwing ideas (<--including Jefferson's) out to see what I got back. You seem overly hostile to my ideas? my approach? me personally?

I don't see congress (<---kids in the candy store) ever putting limits on itself so the only way to limit them is through revolutionary proposals such as a convention. I'm not sure this is the time and place for this but those at the original convention were able to find a way to discuss a variety of complex ideas and come to a compromise on them.

 

[The-Joker]

Where were these guys when Bush was raising the deficit in unprecedented terms?

Cheering him on.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't know that.

 

[babe]

Yeah, I haven't really thought about this before. I wasn't ready to just dismiss the entire convention idea or the reasons for it and so I tried to promote discussion by throwing ideas (<--including Jefferson's) out to see what I got back. You seem overly hostile to my ideas? my approach? me personally?

I don't see congress (<---kids in the candy store) ever putting limits on itself so the only way to limit them is through revolutionary proposals such as a convention. I'm not sure this is the time and place for this but those at the original convention were able to find a way to discuss a variety of complex ideas and come to a compromise on them.

One thing I've noticed in here is that there are some people here with substantial education and expertise in some of the areas of our discussions. While there are some who are just partisans without a lot of thinking behind it, and some who are following posters around to sorta direct the discussions to a particular conclusion, it's not the worst place I know of to "Promote discussion by throwing ideas out to see" what you get back. But no "buddy system" to float your boat either.

I think we have gone far into the night of socialism, and few of us really are so uncomfortable about it we are gonna jump outta the pot if it gets a degree or two more socialistic. But the mere existence of a teaparty movement, while not developed by great insightful and wise leadership, is perhaps going to put a thermometer in the pot to make those who wish to be, aware of just what the situation is.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna do my bit to point out who developed and promoted socialism and why. It was those concerned gentlemen of Europe's leading circles, elitists if you please, who felt that the American revolution and governing principles were a direct threat to their way of life. Their purpose was to co-opt the aspirations of the common folk, and sorta re-direct them in a way they could manage. Socialism is actually a counter-revolution to the American revolution, which posited inate human rights and sought to limit the power of government.

Now, they've got almost all of us believing we can't live without them.

It's a big lie.

But we have to understand the folks who have soaked up huge inventories of education from our socialist propaganda/education institutions. Given all the assumptions about our collective natures and needs, and the practical impossibilities of surviving without our cartel/corporate Daddy MegaBucks' professional influences in guiding our government, and therefore, us, it's just "common sense" we need the gov to supervise us/care for us.

We can't go out our back doors and wander in the woods gathering mushrooms, berries, and firewood anymore. It belongs to the Gov. We can't shoot a rabbit and make some stew. It belongs to the Gov. Air, water, land, sea..... all belong to our keepers.

So here's what to do: run for office. Say all the good things. Be all the right things. Flatter all the right people. Be a real DINO/RINO centrist. Collect your fat paycheck. Do nothing. Permit nothing to be done.

Gee whiz. . . . . it just occurred to me this has been going on for a very, very long time. . . . .

Problem is, our PC-centered values don't permit anyone to do otherwise. . . .

Answer is, give the folks like Lyndon LaRouche or Phyllis Schlafly, and a lot of others, the lattitude to think and advocate ideas that are not so closely conforming, and elect some Libertarians or others who are "out there" somehow. Give freedom a chance.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't have access to the Diebolds. I'm sure a lot of them sold themselves short and voted McSame while bitching the whole way to the voting booth. I saw a lot of Ron Paul signs around too.

If you listened then you would have heard the same anti-spending complaining over Bush's prescription drug program, NCLB, etc. Saying they weren't complaining then but are now is as inaccurate as saying leftists were complaining then but aren't now. I live here and interact with enough people to hear what you don't. You don't have to take my word for it, but a little searching the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune archives will give you what you need. Utahns like to push back on the federal government a lot harder than, say, the coastal states.

As a side note, my opinion is that the economy is much better now than it was when Obama was elected. However, this shouldn't affect voting preference like we're both aware it does.

I have no doubt that there were a few staunch conservatives that were upset about the national debt under Bush.

I've lived in Utah for a lot of my life. I remember reading letter after letter in the Dnews in support of Bush (calling people traitors if they spoke against a President during the times of war). I remember the articles calling people cowards for not supporting the war on Iraq. I remember Charles Krauthammer and other writers printed in the Dnews write ups saying how "we" were fighting for freedom while other "socialized" countries like Germany and France would not. I remember reading letter after letter about how the tax cuts were good and that the deficits created were going towards stimulating the failing economy (which had failed because of Clinton) and fighting the wars (which were because of Clinton because he didn't do anything after the USS cole).

I have no doubt that a very small handful of conservatives have been upset over the past 20 years... 30 years... 100 years about the national debt. But by far the vast majority of those who identify themselves as conservatives, were supportive of Bush's policies. Merely because, he had a R by his name. It wasn't until the very end of his presidency that he finally had less than 50 % approval rating in Utah.

Personally, I think arguing these types of points are worthless. A lot of people on the other side probably swear that Obama is completely different than Bush...

The truth of the matter is that hardly anyone would be upset if the economy was good. Since it isn't, people are looking for "change." AM radio and fox tells them what they need to know while Palin and the Tea Party Populists pump them up.

 

[The Thriller]

So if you were vocal while Bush was President, credit to you Franklin. Unfortunately, most of your Utahn brothers weren't so noble. And to be fair, if Obama sucks, there will probably be some liberal states that will be silent too. It's really pathetic.

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

if Obama sucks,

IF? I thought this was the first thing both sides have agreed on in awhile.

 

[The Thriller]

IF? I thought this was the first thing both sides have agreed on in awhile.

Depends on what "both sides" are. IF you're an extreme on either side, then yes, you're probably thinking that he sucks. If you're a moderate, you're probably just wanting the economy to do more gooder.

Obama has been a pretty moderate president so far. If he "sucks" it's probably due to him not fulfilling your radical agenda.

I for one will at least let him finish his first term before I pass judgment. Once more, a double standard. Obama from day 1 has been declared a failure by conservatives. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me, when one of the most popular conservative voices (Sean Hannity) was still voicing out his opinion that we won't know how good of a Pres Bush was until years perhaps decades after....

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Depends on what "both sides" are. IF you're an extreme on either side, then yes, you're probably thinking that he sucks. If you're a moderate, you're probably just wanting the economy to do more gooder.

Obama has been a pretty moderate president so far. If he "sucks" it's probably due to him not fulfilling your radical agenda.

I for one will at least let him finish his first term before I pass judgment. Once more, a double standard. Obama from day 1 has been declared a failure by conservatives. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me, when one of the most popular conservative voices (Sean Hannity) was still voicing out his opinion that we won't know how good of a Pres Bush was until years perhaps decades after....

Both sides means everyone. He sucks.

 

[The Thriller]

One thing I wanted to add, is that a lot of these anti fed gov movements, call for limited government. In reality, they aren't limiting government at all. In fact, they're just swtiching power from the fed gov to the state gov. I remember a quote from the movie, "The Patriot." Remember at the beginning when they're deciding on if to join the war? Mel Gibson says something like... "Why should I trade one tyrant who lives 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

To me, letting states "decide" doesn't change the fact that government is still making rules. Just because decisions are made at a local level doesn't mean that they're any more fair or unfair.... Nor am I sold on it being more fiscally responsible. Anyone else remember the 13 million flushed down the drain because of the governor's bribes, I mean business, I mean UDOT's mistake with another construction company?

 

[The Thriller]

Both sides means everyone. He sucks.

sweet dude.

 

[The Thriller]

One last thing before I g2 bed, Franklin and others... My opinion on how Obama's been treated could be a little tainted in that I base a lot of my opinion on my local ties. Bush was supported here in Utah a lot more than in any other states.

And... Here's an interesting poll....

Nationally, Obama has been approved horribly by Mormons (who make up a lot of Utahns).

https://www.gallup.com/poll/142700/muslims-give-obama-highest-job-approval-mormons-lowest.aspx

In June of 09, when Obama averaged an approval rating of 63 percent among all Americans, he averaged 43 percent for Mormons...

In July of 10, when he averaged 48 percent among all Americans, he averaged 24 percent among Mormons.

Why is that BTW?

Anyway, so I bring this up not to bash any religion or anything. But it's merely just a concession that I observe a lot the conservative culture of Utah... Which seems to be different (even moreso than Protestants) areas/peoples.

I'm not really arguing just discussing since Franklin is obviously a conservative and feels like they were upset over the Bush deficits and gov expansion even before the populist anti gov tea party movement gained traction...

 

[franklin]

In June of 09, when Obama averaged an approval rating of 63 percent among all Americans, he averaged 43 percent for Mormons...

That's incredibly higher than I would have ever guessed.

I'm not really arguing just discussing since Franklin is obviously a conservative and feels like they were upset over the Bush deficits and gov expansion even before the populist anti gov tea party movement gained traction...

I'm not a conservative. I've promoted many liberal ideas on here (high gas tax, highly progressive death tax, a fan of QE). Even if I were it shouldn't negate my POV.

I heard and saw conservatives openly complaining about many Bush policies. The ones I know personally complained heavily over Bush's $300 rebate check, and complained harder over the 2nd round in 2008. They were calling our senators non-stop over TARP, and literally fired Senator Bennett for leading the bailout charge on the republican side. How can I see this and not laugh at the notion that conservatives simply shut up during Bush II because he was a republican? It's patently false. Yeah, they support his wars, but throwing party liners like Sean Hannity out as typifying Utah conservatives really is a slap in the face.

All ideologues have their faults and blind spots. There is this notion, which has been pushed here ad nauseum, that ideologues throw their values out the window when they gain power. It's ludicrous and I've provided enough examples to prove so (at least for the right; I'll leave examples of the left to the lefties).

Of all people here, I'd expect you to give credit where due since you're the most vocal about holding both sides accountable for their faults.

 

[franklin]

Taking measures that reduce aggregate demand in the face of liquidity trap, such as curbing spending, is EXACTLY the wrong move and virtually guaranteed to worsen a recession.


Which suggests exactly the opposite mechanism you proposed earlier: that the debt ceiling should lower as the GDP increases. Obviously you've really thought this one out.

Of course a sliding scale like that would probably be kind of complex and we'd want some flexibility built in to deal with different types of unforeseen problems in the future. Maybe that Constitutional Amendment idea isn't the brightest for dealing with this kind of problem.

The issue isn't so much having a debt that moves back toward zero. The problem is it's impractical to implement without something like an independent Federal Reserve setting spending policy, and that policy would have to come in line with the two main monetary tools the Fed controls (interest rates and capital requirements). Congress is too fixated on politics to get the spending anywhere close to correct.

Economists from Keynes to Friedman have tossed around ideas that would match Millsapa's sentiment. Keynes ideas have proven impractical as congress cannot control itself. I'm afraid any version of Friedman's ideas would require significant changes to the current structure.

 

[One Brow]

laws requiring equal treatment are often very arbitrary. There is a BIG difference between having the same rights as everyone else and having legally enforced equal treatment.

As I said, that's a debatable point.

 

[One Brow]

LOL! I'm sure you've heard of Robert Byrd.

Which is why I specified in the last 2 decades or so. Prior to the passage of the the Civil Rights Act, the Democrats were arguably the party with more racists. There was about three decades of shifting after that passage.

 

[Gameface]

One thing I wanted to add, is that a lot of these anti fed gov movements, call for limited government. In reality, they aren't limiting government at all. In fact, they're just swtiching power from the fed gov to the state gov. I remember a quote from the movie, "The Patriot." Remember at the beginning when they're deciding on if to join the war? Mel Gibson says something like... "Why should I trade one tyrant who lives 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

To me, letting states "decide" doesn't change the fact that government is still making rules. Just because decisions are made at a local level doesn't mean that they're any more fair or unfair.... Nor am I sold on it being more fiscally responsible. Anyone else remember the 13 million flushed down the drain because of the governor's bribes, I mean business, I mean UDOT's mistake with another construction company?

I agree with you here. That's not what I want, however. I trust the state far less to protect my individual rights.

 

[PearlWatson]

One thing I've noticed in here is that there are some people here with substantial education and expertise in some of the areas of our discussions. While there are some who are just partisans without a lot of thinking behind it, and some who are following posters around to sorta direct the discussions to a particular conclusion, it's not the worst place I know of to "Promote discussion by throwing ideas out to see" what you get back. But no "buddy system" to float your boat either.

I think we have gone far into the night of socialism, and few of us really are so uncomfortable about it we are gonna jump outta the pot if it gets a degree or two more socialistic. But the mere existence of a teaparty movement, while not developed by great insightful and wise leadership, is perhaps going to put a thermometer in the pot to make those who wish to be, aware of just what the situation is.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna do my bit to point out who developed and promoted socialism and why. It was those concerned gentlemen of Europe's leading circles, elitists if you please, who felt that the American revolution and governing principles were a direct threat to their way of life. Their purpose was to co-opt the aspirations of the common folk, and sorta re-direct them in a way they could manage. Socialism is actually a counter-revolution to the American revolution, which posited inate human rights and sought to limit the power of government.

Now, they've got almost all of us believing we can't live without them.

It's a big lie.

But we have to understand the folks who have soaked up huge inventories of education from our socialist propaganda/education institutions. Given all the assumptions about our collective natures and needs, and the practical impossibilities of surviving without our cartel/corporate Daddy MegaBucks' professional influences in guiding our government, and therefore, us, it's just "common sense" we need the gov to supervise us/care for us.

We can't go out our back doors and wander in the woods gathering mushrooms, berries, and firewood anymore. It belongs to the Gov. We can't shoot a rabbit and make some stew. It belongs to the Gov. Air, water, land, sea..... all belong to our keepers.

So here's what to do: run for office. Say all the good things. Be all the right things. Flatter all the right people. Be a real DINO/RINO centrist. Collect your fat paycheck. Do nothing. Permit nothing to be done.

Gee whiz. . . . . it just occurred to me this has been going on for a very, very long time. . . . .

Problem is, our PC-centered values don't permit anyone to do otherwise. . . .

Answer is, give the folks like Lyndon LaRouche or Phyllis Schlafly, and a lot of others, the lattitude to think and advocate ideas that are not so closely conforming, and elect some Libertarians or others who are "out there" somehow. Give freedom a chance.

Yeah we're so screwed that anything half assed that we do ain't going to make a hill of beans.

My bad for attempting to be open minded on this issue and thinking others were willing to be as well. Now it's just turned into a tea party vs. obama argument. Boring.

I think it is rather worrisome to have had the current congress accumulated more debt than the previous 100 congresses combined. I don't know how we are getting out of this mess but it ain't gonna be pretty.

Link

 

[The Thriller]

Yeah we're so screwed that anything half assed that we do ain't going to make a hill of beans.

I think it is rather worrisome to have had the current congress spend more money that the previous 100 congresses combined. I don't know how we are getting out of this mess but it ain't gonna be pretty.

100 congresses ago, people could live off less than $1000 dollars per year.

You're bringing up some weak arguments.

Basically, you're saying that paying Deron x amount of money right now is worrisome since Stockton didn't make in his career what Deron is in just this year alone.

 

[sirkickyass]

I think it is rather worrisome to have had the current congress spend more money that the previous 100 congresses combined.

O RLY? Link please.

 

[PearlWatson]

You seem overly hostile to my ideas? my approach? me personally?

Eureka! It was because of the silly action I pulled before I realized (<---just today) you were an all powerful moderator isn't it?