*sigh* The deficit is caused primarily by two things: The lower tax receipts from the huge destruction of wealth during the 2008 crash. The increased spending in the social safety net that automatically kicks in during such downturns. Long term out deficit is a product of bad demographics and health costs.

So no, the Government isn't a family, it doesn't tighten it's belt. It's an insurance company for old people with an army, and it sets its own wage.

Don't want it to be inflationary? Just sell off the debt the FED bought during Quantitative Easing.

But it's about time.

The correct answer is to not run a counter-attack ad because it legitimizes the argument and gets more play in the media.

To vote for it out of committee is ostensibly a vote for it, in the same way that in the Senate a vote for cloture can be used as a vote for it. The point for the politician is that it's just true enough for attack ads to be run on the subject. It's unfortunate that our politics aren't allowed the nuance they so deserve, but that's they way it is.

No, it won't ever leave committee. No one who has to run for reelection wants to be seen as soft on crime and drugs and that's EXACTLY what they'll be seen as if they vote for this thing to move it out of committee. Paul and Frank run in districts at the far right and left of the US political spectrum and can get away with this sort of thing, most of the rest of congress does not.

The only way I see Legalization coming about is the following scenario: California eventually does it, followed soon by Oregon and Washington seeking more desperately needed revenues. Then, in response to this, the more conservative states in the deep south try to push back against it, with some success at first, but then their gross need for revenues begins to outweigh the social factors, and it's done. That's when you'll see it taken up, or at least defacto, at the federal level. It's also not a question of "if" but "when" once California legalized it for medicinal use, the foot was in the door.

This one will die before it leaves committee.

Yes but for only $3.99 a month they could own your music!

Think about it: Physical media (hard drives/flash) is cheap, consumers have been using it for years, data on phones is getting shittier, caps are becoming more common, and the internet and electricity never go out. WE SHOULD CHARGE PEOPLE TO HOLD ON TO THEIR MUSIC!

You included my direct quotes to tear down arguments that I didn't make and have nothing to do with what I said. Pretty sure that's a straw man.

You're half right. The executive branch has to interpret the law, because they're the ones executing it. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate rule making authority to parts of the executive branch (like how the EPA can set emission levels). The whole reason White House council and the Justice Department exist is to interpret the law.

You get a 30 day withdrawal period, that in effect gives you 90 days. His legal analysis and the analysis of not all but some in the Justice Department is that NATO operations in Libya, to the extent we're involved, don't constitute hostilities. The law is not clear on what "hostilities" are. For all your argument otherwise, this is gospel unless the Supreme Court rules it otherwise, or Congress modifies the War Powers Act. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying this isn't exactly settled law. The kicker will be if drone attacks constitute hostilities, and that's not as clear cut as you would think. Consider that we've been using drones in Yemen for years now without any sort of the fuss this is causing, and the administration can easily make the case that this kind of mission is similar. Ghadaffi is wanted for war crimes and basically the whole world considers him a pariah, he was responsible for actual terrorist attacks against US citizens and is generally perceived as illegitimate. Those views and facts to me constitute a plausible, if not rock solid, case that the use of drone strikes on select targets and logistical support for the other countries involved in the NATO mission as not necessarily "hostile" as defined by the War Powers Act. Yes it's unilateral on the part of the President but until the Supreme Court puts a check on this, years down the line, the President is within his rights as the Commander-in-Chief to interpret the law as such.

That's not me trying to confuse the facts, that's me trying to put them into context of reality.

Wow, I've never been made a straw man before.