dayman

Oh no doubt, don't get me wrong when I say "American military" later on calling the largest socialist institution I mean it in an all encompassing way...from the contractor right down to the family.

And btw I'm not suggesting there aren't people on welfare that are scum, or that all people on welfare are scum, but the general attitude that there is a mass horde of lazy takers on welfare and not working and that's the reason we have financial problems...it's stupidity. And from a political standpoint, this stupidity has created more passion and momentum than is worthy of it and hampered reasoned debate.

What I'm saying is the American military is probably the largest and most well funded socialist institution on planet earth today. Yes there there are people who pay into a program and take much more out, they too are taking, a lot. Then there are people who are poor, and get checks in the mail, also takers. This isn't to argue there is no distinction that you can draw, it's to argue that particularly when you look at the amount of money these different categories of people cost, it's a distinction with no practical difference. Unless you are on a moral crusade and just standing on your high horse looking down at some while not minding others and claiming it's only about fiscal issues...which by the way is an excellent way to gain a certain kind of political support, then it's just dumb to talk about takers in the way most people do today. If you want to make it about takers..., then the reality is...looks at all those who "take" from the dole and how much...when you ultimately do you may be less uppity about it and more practical about how and what is needed and what/how different things are possible moving forward as opposed to mindless yelling about the lazy people who refuse to work and supposedly zap the entire wealth of this nation... It's really just a round about way of saying what everybody knows and says all the time...if you want to talk about takers you have to talk about medicare and military and you really should talk about them first if you are serious about "takers zapping the wealth of our nation"

Just for the sake of discussion b/c this is a little interesting to me...so long as it is in some way linked to a job, even if it's the establishment of what can fairly be described as an extensive gov't funded socialist bubble....then it somehow has a special status relative to your conservative views?

If you want to throw around "taker" then you have to name a lot of people, as Rob did. I just was pointing out while he listed many, he left out the 2 biggest groups. Medicare participants, and the military (both the complex and the personnel)

And not pile on the military b/c I don't care to do so but if you all insist it's crazy to even speak of that...it's really not if you are consistent about identifying "takers." I mean bases are their own little bubble, independent law enforcement, grocery stores, big-box stores, school system, child care, housing and health care....all run by the government. Obviously in the past this was important people were drafted, pay was low, and many most bases were no where near civilization and/or overseas....but today these factors remain a huge part of retention for personnel certainly those with dependents. Today of course the situation is a bit different, volunteer services and higher pay (CBO estimates military pay averages 75% percentile compared to civilian jobs w/ comparable skill sets)...and other CBO studies show that a simple a cash allowance could easily get military personnel the same level of groceries for instance at way lower cost than running a government grocery store (but every time this is brought up you can bet a free-market fiscal hawk conservatives beat it down to support our troops)...etc etc...I mean YES THESE ARE EARNED BENEFITS but it's still subsidized by the taxpayer it's still "taking" and it is a somewhat "socialist institution" so to speak. It is ultimately, more money out than in...they do work as medicare people pay in...but it's still more out than in...and if you compare it to the private sector than can be no mistake about that... (also...this is not an original point credit to mike lofgren)

just saying...more money out than in...technically taking

And just keep in mind here I'm not saying he shouldn't have that service or anything against him or military families at all...

Hey all I'm saying is anyone who gets more benefits than they pay in with cash money...technically taking...no disrespect to military families I know many of them and many of them are in my family...merely pointing out a fact

http://bigstory.ap.o...-backing-hitler ROME (AP) — Former Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi praised Benito Mussolini for "having done good" despite the Fascist dictator's anti-Jewish laws, immediately sparking expressions of outrage as Europe on Sunday held Holocaust remembrances. ... "It is difficult now to put oneself in the shoes of who was making decisions back then," Berlusconi said of Mussolini's support for Hitler. "Certainly the (Italian) government then, fearing that German power would turn into a general victory, preferred to be allied with Hitler's Germany rather that oppose it." Berlusconi added that "within this alliance came the imposition of the fight against, and extermination of, the Jews. Thus, the racial laws are the worst fault of Mussolini, who, in so many other aspects, did good." More than 7,000 Jews were deported under Mussolini's regime, and nearly 6,000 of them were killed. Reactions of outrage, along with a demand that Berlusconi be prosecuted for promoting Fascism, quickly followed his words. ....

If you insist on calling people takers, you might as well include every single person in the country on medicare....and every military family...

Earlier this week, the bill was referred to the House Constitution Committee. hehe...heh....heh

Oliver Stone movie incoming. *Oliver Stone voice*: "If only we had been brave enough to be vulnerable, we might have stayed free"

BTW the best answer for that is a DOJ brief in a '93 case that cites the adjournments clause (a clause unrelated to appointments) as a weak but the best argument that there is a constitutionally set number of days to constitute a recess for the purposes of intrasession recess appointments. Of course, intrasession recess appointments were rare and very short at the founding, intersession frequent and long, today it is the exact opposite, and it is clear there is no set intrasession break days number...therefore there is no real difference between 10 days and 3...certainly not when the 3 is in the middle of a 20 day break w/ mere pro forma sessions. In any event Obama has used recess appointments in general far less than his 2 predecessors but I know that doesn't fit the narrative...

I don't really know nobody will. There are a few articles floating around claiming that she was unhappy that she had limited appearances and almost nothing towards the very end of her contract, and that various producers at fox called her stupid and made fun of her to coworkers behind the scenes. Ultimately she rejected the contract which if she wants to continue to be an outspoken advocate for...whoever it is she represents....you would think $1M gift for the opportunity to selectively appear on fox as a contributor would be something she wants...unless of course she wasn't getting on enough and/or felt they didn't appreciate/respect/value her...it's all speculation of course since no sources accusing their boss of calling her stupid will be named and neither side will comment about the regularity of her appearances and both just say "good luck to her/fox" respectively...

Explain the difference please I would love to hear you do it

hehe...I know the conservative media narrative is that imperial overlord Obama tried to slip in some recess appointments when the congress was in recess but not between sessions and this is bold and unheard of insanity....the reality is these intrasession appointments have happened all the time. How dare he staff the NLRB so it can function! Who does he think he is! The President?

In the courts opinion and it's one thing I do agree with, substantively no. If you want to talk number of days...then it was 3 where more commonly it has been 5 or 10 or so on the close on end... ...and it was really 20 anyway the 3 just accounts for the gavel dropping w/ nobody in the room every 3 days

Well you are just wrong on that. I can't prove it obviously b/c I don't have a time machine but it's not true. And btw like I said earlier there are many positions that the confirmation process is appropriate for and should be kept, just not 500+ not even close

Well we're getting a bit off topic since I'm just saying let whoever gets the job have an easier time staffing his agencies....but to your point....I suppose you elect the guy who runs saying he doesn't like it?

Then reign in that power, but as long as we're voting for the guy we give the power to do that...let him staff the exec positions a little easier? well IDK if that exists or not but something similar probably does...point being that if something should be eliminated then eliminate it don't just sabotage it...what we have we should try to do well

Then advocate for its deletion? Campaign more specifically and aggressively for getting rid of various departments you don't like? Don't use the appointment process to just !@#$ up something and keep the government that does exist without leadership.

Well she hit all her buzzwords. After being snubbed in her fox news contract apparently by not getting many appearances as she wanted and by not being respected by various producers, glad to see she can at least do some interviews still. Politics just isn't the same without the wild child from the wilderness. I would be interested to know who she thinks they should have picked...Santorum? Moving forward...Santorum again?

I often end up advocating a strong executive. THe entire nation votes for that spot, whoever is in it becomes the commander in chief and head of teh executive, allow him so staff a bit more of his underlings a little easier. They rarely get rejected anyway they're just bothered and delayed....for God's sake he can reign hell fire from the sky on some guy walking around in a desert halfway around the world I think he can pick a director of womens activities in the labor department...

I would argue that Hamilton saw this a great check promoting judicious choices at the time when the number of confirmed positions was less than the number of guys on a football team. And no doubt he imagined the actual process existing was more the check than an actual down vote which he imagined would be extremely rare. But now...it's just a self defeating mechanism and it doesn't promote our republican system in any credible way to have the entire senate confirm the inspector general of the railroad retirement board. Oh and just be clear I'm not saying do away with it I'm say drastically reduce the positions that need a confirmation to those that are important and worthy of the senate's time...so that the senate may get to it and do it rather than having posts just sit around w/ nobody in them officially.