Ah!
That makes a lot of sense. I think I understand all of the balanced budget talk now.
But if you did that, wouldn’t the debt just increase, anyway, defeating the purpose of the balanced budget amendment? I know, ‘cleaning up after the elephants’ may suck, but if the Republicans have abandoned fiscal discipline, it makes it even more important that the Democrats have it.
The problem is, balancing the budget isn’t the only thing that’s important, and it isn’t necessarily the most important thing. The amendment would in effect say it’s #1, barring, IIRC, war or national emergency. I disagree with that prioritizing.
I missed his disavowing the remarks that got him into trouble. Thanks for the update - I retract my criticism of Richardson on those grounds.
A balanced budget amendment is a horrible idea, because in emergent cases deficit spending is a must. Any amendment would have to allow for spending in the case of wars or national emergencies, and it would probably define “national emergency” down so far as to be completely useless.
Unfortunately, it’s a horrible idea that tends to cut across party lines.
The problem is that deficit spending has become the equivalent of a competition between two divorced parents. One party wants to take America out to the amusement park every weekend followed by pizza at Chuck E. Cheese and then a trip to the mall. The other party tells America it has to pay its bills and put some money aside for college. So America decides the first parent is the fun one. But we all secretly know which parent is talking sense.
The Republicans, who used to be the fiscally smart party, have decided they’d rather be the fun party - they’ll max out the credit cards, raise our allowance, take us all to the movies, and we’ll all have a great time. The Democrats are now the sensible party - they’re the ones who say we should start collecting some taxes and pay off all that money we borrowed.
That is one of the best analogies I’ve ever read, Little Nemo. I cannot agree more.
As Jon Stewart said, he was tired out by his long airplane ride from the fifties.
I’m afraid don’t believe him. After saying it’s a choice, he was asked the same question again in a different way and he stuck by his original answer. I think his tiredness led him to forget his script and answer how he really felt. I think the next day’s comments were emergency management.
Regarding Freddie and his renown laziness, what more proof of laziness do you need other than the fact that he got only 4 of his 90 bills passed? Or, for that matter, that he only sponsored 90 bills?
If every Senator sponsored 90 bills that’s 9000 bills. Do you think that many bills are really necessary?
The trouble with being for a balanced budget is that the other guy gets to be for tax cuts. Or he gets to accuse you of wanting to raise taxes to balance the budget. It’s almost a death wish to want to actually balance the budget.
I could care less whether Freddie attends church twice a day or once in a lifetime, but I loved this bit:
That’s OK, Freddie. Plenty of those fundies don’t really care about God anyway. For many of them, the real tribal-identity question is, do you share their enemies? If you hate liberals, Muslims, and Mexicans, that’s good enough for them.
Count me impressed by Thompson’s religious stand:
I may not be on the same page politically with Mr. Thompson, but in a time when Republicans (and not a few Democrats) spend a good deal of their time and energy sucking up to the Fundies and their ilk, this was one of the most refreshing statements I’ve heard from a candidate in a long time.
I’m not quite ready yet to switch sides, but this kind of up-front honesty commands at least a cursory glance in his direction.
Am I being whooshed here? Thompson talks about his religious beliefs in states where it’s popular but says he will keep quiet in states were it isn’t. And that’s refreshing and honest? Where I come from we call than pandering to the audience.
I did some research at the Library of Congress web site to try to get a handle on the average number of bills a senator sponsors (excluding all mere co-sponsoring), using my Senator Carl Levin as a baseline.
It turned out to be 101.4 Senate bills sponsored per year. While Thompson only sponsored a grand total of 90 bills over the course of eight years, giving an average of only 11.25 bills sponsored per year.
That spells L-A-Z-Y to me. YMMV.
That’s because he didn’t think it was a federal issue. Basically, Thompson has said that it was a local matter that should never have been an issue for the Congress to deal with.
Isn’t that a reasonable position to take? I think that’s the majority position on the SDMB.
Let’s compare the records of Thompson and Edwards at Govtrack.US for the 110th congress, shall we?
Thompson: 82 bills sponsored, 4 successfully enacted.
Edwards: 81 Bills sponsored, 0 successfully enacted.
In comparison, Hillary Clinton sponsored 329 bills, 2 of which were enacted.
John McCain sponsored 402 bills, 12 successfully enacted.
How about another measure of ‘laziness’, the number of votes missed?
Thompson: Missed 1% of votes.
Edwards: Missed 15% of votes.
Perhaps the number of bills sponsored isn’t really a good measure of ‘laziness’? For example, a person ideiologically biased towards limited, ‘hands-off’ government is less likely to sponsor bills than someone who sees government as the cure of all ills, wouldn’t you say?
Or perhaps someone who sponsors a lot of bills is someone who gives a lot of favors to lobbyists and financial supporters.
Or perhaps some politicians have larger staffs, or publish a lot of garbage bills to pad their count to make it look like they are doing more. Note that Thompson has a higher percentage of his bills passed than any of them.
Maybe counting the number of bills is just not a good measure of a politician’s performance.
In any event, if Thompson is lazy, I have a hard time seeing how you wouldn’t say the same about Edwards, only more so. I imagine that if Thompson missed 15% of his Senate votes (WAY below average, btw), you guys would be making big hay about it.
Huh? Isn’t the 110th the current Congress, of which neither Edwards not Thompson belong?
Anyway, it’s a little tougher to enact legislation from the minority party, particularly when the majority party is drunk with power.
Old Fred sure has impressed conservative writer George Will.
Regular dynamo, that Thompson is.
Just what we need, another incoherent president.
Maybe I was too subtle on the religion thing. I couldn’t help but notice that Freddie basically seems to be trying to give the impression that he is a churchgoer when he’s home in Tennessee, but of course he doesn’t attend church regularly “up there” in McLean, because that isn’t his main home.
Of course, Sam Stone has just spent a great deal of time telling us otherwise. He’s just a guy who only goes to church when he’s visiting his momma, in order to keep her happy. Nothing’s wrong with that, of course - it’s just that in the same breath as saying he’s not going to talk about religion, he’s trying to imply for the benefit of the fundies that yes, he* is* a regular churchgoer.
That would be a fine position - if that had been his position. But he didn’t say that. What he actually said was “I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best. That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.” I see that as saying, “Some good people think Terry Schiavo’s life should have been protected and some good people think the government shouldn’t get involved in personal matter. And I agree with those good people.”
Of course, if you read another paragraph or two, you find:
I guess it also matters how you spin the story. Look at how ABC News reported it. The headline: “Thompson Suggests Congress Overreached in Schiavo Case”