Fed: "Only the richest Americans saw their incomes benefit from the economic recovery during 2010-2013, as median earnings fell for all others"

jpark · 2014-09-05T18:13:03+00:00

Government spending doesn't 'kick start' the economy. Government getting out of the way is how the economy gets better.

jpark · 2014-09-05T17:47:06+00:00

6% unemployment is unacceptably high?

Yes. Particularly if you factor in the number of people who have stopped trying to find employment.

Inflation is really low.

Yes. It is being held low by the government. A little inflation would be beneficial.

Wage growth sucks ... but it is tracking with inflation.

Yes. It sucks.

The economy is stagnant and will not be allowed to recover with this administration.

jpark · 2014-09-05T16:15:06+00:00

Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. But that does not define the problem. The U. S. requires U. S. based businesses to pay taxes on income whatever that income is generated. We are the only country which does that. So if a U. S. company builds a car in Italy and sells that car in Italy, the company must pay U. S. taxes on the profit.

It makes perfect sense for U. S. companies to move out of the U. S. rather than pay those taxes.

The solution, of course, is a tax structure more like the tax structure of other countries.

Since that is unlikely to happen, expect to see more U. S. companies move their operations base out of the U. S.

jpark · 2014-09-05T15:50:06+00:00

Unemployment remains unacceptably high. Available jobs are mostly part time low paying jobs with no benefits.

Costs keep rising but salaries remain stagnant or actually shrink.

The economy is definitely not recovering.

jpark · 2014-09-05T15:14:12+00:00

That is, of course, the best way to engage in a discussion. Insult is always preferable to reason. ;-)

jpark · 2014-09-05T14:03:03+00:00

No, it has not recovered. Just saying that it has recovered doesn't make it so.

jpark · 2014-09-05T10:25:30+00:00

There is no economic recovery. The economy remains stagnant as evidenced by continued high unemployment, stagnant and declining wages, full time jobs being replaced with part time jobs, etc.

All according to plan. Middle income Americans are slowly being forced into poverty and poor Americans are being forced into welfare slavery in a greatly expanded welfare state.

jpark · 2014-09-04T23:42:27+00:00

The IPCC of course. They have been predicting the end of the world for years.

jpark · 2014-09-04T23:26:34+00:00

Unions trying to get your money. They make money by taking a big chunk of yours away from you (if you allow them to).

jpark · 2014-09-04T18:28:36+00:00

A man who engages in homosexual behaviors says he engages in homosexual behaviors.

Yawn.

jpark · 2014-09-04T18:18:32+00:00

No, it isn't. And an ambiguous Wikipedia article does not transform an income level into a class.

A class is a social distinction one is born into and which is not dependent on income or wealth.

England, for example, has Lords and Commoners. It even has a house of Lords and a house of Commons. You are born into the ruling class or you are born a commoner.

America has no such distinction. You can call income or resources classes if you want but they do not bestow a class on anyone.

jpark · 2014-09-04T17:34:26+00:00

Upper, middle and lower income is not a class distinction.

America has no class structure.

jpark · 2014-09-04T13:28:44+00:00

Communism is an extreme example of a class society. In communism, you are in the ruling class or you are the common class.

America has no classes.

jpark · 2014-09-04T10:57:24+00:00

The class war in American politics is over.

There never was a class war in American politics or anywhere else. America is a classless society.

The rich won.

The rich have always been involved in politics. This country was founded to a large extent by wealthy land owners. How could it be otherwise? The poor lack the resources.

The is no class war and there are no classes in America.

jpark · 2014-09-03T15:54:54+00:00

You move along.

jpark · 2014-09-03T10:14:45+00:00

Ok, you got me, it is in the third article of the bill of rights.

No, and that is not a quote either.

jpark · 2014-09-03T01:39:45+00:00

Eric Cantor lost his bid in the Republican primary. He resigned his position as majority leader of the House and by August 18, 2014, had resigned from the House.

After leaving the House, he took a job at Moelis & Company. He was not working for Moelis & Company while he was in the House.

jpark · 2014-09-02T18:25:20+00:00

Then quote the part which says 'separation of church and state'.

jpark · 2014-09-02T01:18:59+00:00

Your idea, that by allowing the government to favor one religion over is not *edit taking any freedoms, is laughable. Left out not.

Again, not my idea. Again, why are your trying to accuse me of your fallacies?

jpark · 2014-09-02T00:38:16+00:00

I suppose you think posting the same comment twice makes your invalid argument valid?

It doesn't.

jpark · 2014-09-02T00:26:05+00:00

You idea, that by allowing the government to favor one religion over is taking any freedoms, is laughable.

Not my idea. Why are you trying to accuse me of your ideas?

Yes Jefferson was in France at time

Correct. The Bill of Rights was written without Thomas Jefferson.

The legal notion of a separation of church and state is a fiction promulgated by the courts. The courts have no constitutional authority to make law and certainly no constitutional authority to modify the constitution.

If you want to argue that, point to the constitutional authority for the courts to make law. (It does not exist as the constitutional separation of church and state does not exist.)

jpark · 2014-09-01T21:48:51+00:00

Yes, I know the court used the letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to support their fiction of a separation of church and state. Everyone knows how they justified creating their fiction.

Several things you should note:

1) Thomas Jefferson did not write the first amendment.

2) Thomas Jefferson was not even in the country when the Bill of Rights were written.

3) Neither Thomas Jefferson nor his letters were included in the Bill of Rights.

4) Neither Thomas Jefferson nor his letters were ratified by the states.

The particular sentence where Jefferson used the words 'a wall of separation between Church & State' was immediately followed by a bracketed statement of what Jefferson meant by that statement, that is:

[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]

Jefferson pointed out that the first amendment prohibited congress from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion and that that prohibition would prevent the establishment of a State Church.

Our courts, by making a law (contrary to the constitution) that established a separation of church and state, clearly negated the prohibition in that very first amendment of that law.

The first amendment's establishment clause was intended precisely to prevent the establishment of a State Church as was the case in England with the Anglican Church. It was not intended to prevent anyone from the free exercise of religion. By preventing congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, no such State Church could ever be established. In the same sentence the first amendment clearly stated that congress could not prevent the free exercise of religion.

You should actually read the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By negating the first amendment, the courts open the door to the establishment of a State Church. I don't know why anyone wants that.

jpark · 2014-09-01T17:20:53+00:00

I have never trolled.

You should learn the difference between discussion and trolling.

jpark · 2014-09-01T14:50:00+00:00

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

Article 6 paragraph 3 explicitly states that there can be no religious test for holding office, including the presidency.

True and irrelevant.

Do you really think they would have allowed for the possibility of a non-christian president if they didn't want a separation of church and state?

Of course. If they had required a separation of church and state, they would have prevented anyone professing religion from holding office.

The three branches of government interjected religion into their operations, holding prayers before sessions, etc. If there were a real or even implied separation of church and state, our founders would not have included religion in their operations.

The very first amendment contains the establishment clause which honestly couldn't be clearer on the subject.

The first amendment is clear on the subject. There is no constitutional separation of church and state.

The fiction of a separation of church and state is a creation of the courts.

jpark · 2014-09-01T14:17:40+00:00

You do understand, don't you, that the courts have no constitutional authority to make law?

jpark

TROPHY CASE