The reasonable nature of any law has nothing to do with it’s constitutionality, except in the mind of liberal judges. In fact, what is so unreasonable about asking that an amendment be passed whenever “reasonable” people, like abortion supporters, decide something should or should not be outlawed? It’s not a complicated procedure and it’s been done 27 times with the latest in 1992.

You are perhaps on to something there with the commerce clause, though it might be a stretch. As you might guess, I will admit that I was taking the hard line with Kilovolt to push the issue.

He finally wirtes at the end that he thinks the Constitution has no value unless it can be ignored. The idiocy of that is self-evident.

But what I think is a more solid constitutional position is the national defense angle, where the military needs to secure the skies in order to defend the nation.

As far as Kilovolt, what I will no longer do is play the game with rule that constantly change.

Re: #57 “…the FAA is not in the Constitution. Therefore, government has no authority to police the skies without a constitutional amendment giving it specific authority to do so.”

In all fairness, this is probably one of the more reasonable uses of the Commerce Clause.

Oh dear, I’ve done it again haven’t I?

I can certainly see your point about how the conservatives got it wrong economically. After all, it was Keynesian aggregate demand stimulation via government spending that accelerated us out of the Great Depression 10 years before the rest of the world. And it was “progressive”, 80% taxation on “the rich” during the Great Society that eliminated poverty and left us with a government surplus. And it was, after all, the same Keynesian concepts that carried over into the Carter administration and gave us that period of unrestrained job growth combined with low interest rates.

Oh, wait a minute, I think I’ve gotten something wrong there…

No you didn’t, and here’s why: [ ]

Yes I did.

No, you didn’t. Here’s why again: [ ]

Yes I did.

No. You didn’t. And I’m not saying why any more.

Outta here.

Actually, MM, the way I recall it, you presented the revenue figures in rebuttal to my statement in so many words that the stimulative effects of tax cuts was negligible and inferior to spending as a stimulus. I never said nor implied that they had hurt the economy. So in fact, your burden of proof was much higher, and not met.

I am not moving goalposts. You are attempting to apply simplistic statements and facts to complex information, and I am not having it.

The Contract with America? Care to elaborate on how what little of its legislation that passed had an effect on the economy, and what specifically expired, causing the economy to drop? From my point of view, it was Clinton’s deal with Greenspan that interest rates would be dropped if the deficits that were brought under control (which was done in part with tax hikes), that fueled the economy during his terms. As previously mentioned, it was the dot com bubble bursting an overheated economy that caused the recession, not some petering out of elements of the Contract with America.

And as an aside, if Clinton left Bush a recession, then Bush has left Obama a depression. Trying to stick this one to Obama will not stand.

Yes, you dealt at length with who received the tax cuts. My rebuttal involved how much they got. The Bush tax cuts were regressive. The math for that is not up for debate.

Regarding the FAA, I was pointing out a simple contradiction in your own words that I stand by as valid.

And again, if the Constitution must be amended to authorize every time the federal government needs to do anything new, then it is an anchor chained around our necks, not a cornerstone.

Clinton had the Contract With America to bring about his mderately successful economy. But that died out in the last three years of his last term, leaving Bush with a recession. Then 911 happened.

It sure is wonderful how you completely ignore large sections of what I write and simply restate your unsubstantiated assertion. I dealt at length with “tax cuts for the rich,” but it’s like it never happened.

“I don’t see the FAA in the Constitution.” Wow, could it be you finally understood a point? You are correct, the FAA is not in the Constitution. Therefore, government has no authority to police the skies without a constitutional amendment giving it specific authority to do so.

Krugman was arguing a different point: Funding, not constitutionality. I pointed out that he was setting up a false choice within the framework he created. That is all I did. And of course, you move the goalpost and want to discuss constitutionality. How air traffic control would be addressed is a separate argument, but the lack of a presently viable alternative is irrelevant to the constitutional issue.

Technology, the evolution of society, the poverty rate, the need for health insurance, you name the topic; it is all irrelevant to constitutional authority. If government needs authority to undertake some sort of task, the Constitution must be amended.

End of story. End of civics lesson.

As you say, there are certainly, “interrelated factors and their relative effect,” especially interest rates, regulatory environments and new technologies, all of which factored hugely in the early 2000s recession (remember the dot com and millenium spending booms in the IT sector, not to mention “irrational exuberance?) along with this one.

Regarding who pays taxes, yeah, I got a check from President Bush, too. But the cuts themselves were regressive. The higher earners saw higher percentage reductions, forcing the overall tax burden downward. Here is one example breakdown of the figures:
http://www.urban.org/publications/901006.html
So to answer your earlier point, yes, “tax cuts for the rich,” is a talking point, but it is one that is firmly rooted in fact.

Something else you wrote stood out:

>>”…air traffic control…” Red herring. No one is arguing for zero government.

Here are your words from earlier in the thread, MM:

>1) Disband all government departments that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

I don’t recall seeing the FAA in the Constitution. Should there really be fifty state Aviation Administrations instead, each controlling its own airspace and setting its own regulations, and standards? Wouldn’t it be great for safety if most pilots were licensed in, say, North Dakota, because it had relatively lax requirements similar to its permissive banking laws? Or if all coast to coast flights were longer, with the airlines diverting around a few flyover states that charged onerous tolls to use their airspace?

If we don’t acknowledge that there exist today technologies and circumstances that the framers literally never imagined, and interpret the Constitution to meet them the best we can, then it becomes an anchor holding us back instead of the cornerstone of a growing and dynamic society.

End of civics lesson.