• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was America Doomed from the Outset?

Who's going to stop him? And, how?

REad the article I posted in post #4.


So, you, like others around here, don't care if the President exceeds his authority as long as nothing can stop him from doing so.

The courts would be well within their power to quash it. The 14th Amendment argument is made up out of whole cloth and transparently bogus. But I guess if you want to make up completely novel powers for the President, you cling to anything, no matter how bone-headed.
 
So, you, like others around here, don't care if the President exceeds his authority as long as nothing can stop him from doing so.
Did you not read the article cited in Post 4? If the Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, one of three things will happen---all of which are illegal.
1. President does not pay the debts of the USA
2. Prsident must raise more revenue, ie taxes
3. President ignores Congress and simply prints more money

What would you do?

The courts would be well within their power to quash it. The 14th Amendment argument is made up out of whole cloth and transparently bogus. But I guess if you want to make up completely novel powers for the President, you cling to anything, no matter how bone-headed.

Nonsense.

You don't know what you're talking about. No surprise, that. I suggest you begin by reading that article up in post 4.
 
Did you not read the article cited in Post 4? If the Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, one of three things will happen---all of which are illegal.
1. President does not pay the debts of the USA
2. Prsident must raise more revenue, ie taxes
3. President ignores Congress and simply prints more money

What would you do?

I would stop insisting that the other side compromise while patently refusing to negotiate so that compromise could actually happen, thus obviating the need for any of it.


The courts would be well within their power to quash it. The 14th Amendment argument is made up out of whole cloth and transparently bogus. But I guess if you want to make up completely novel powers for the President, you cling to anything, no matter how bone-headed.
Nonsense.

Really? Specify the exact nonsense and what is nonsensical about it.
 
1. I would stop insisting that the other side compromise while patently refusing to negotiate so that compromise could actually happen, thus obviating the need for any of it.




2. Really? Specify the exact nonsense and what is nonsensical about it.
1. Negotiate what? The "Obamacare" Law is a done deal. It passed both Houses and was upheld by SCOTUS. That the minority now blackmails the majority by withholding a debt increase is a travesty. It's the unrelated spending Bill that is the issue, not the ACA.
2. The nonsense is in the fact that once it's done the courts can do whatever they want--it'll be over. It's asking forgiveness, not permission. And, given that the president has only one of these three options: Default, Confiscation or ignoring Congress, the American People will forgive the latter.
 
1. Negotiate what? The "Obamacare" Law is a done deal.

Indeed it is, passed on a straight party line vote, unlike any other major social legislation in modern history. And that is the source of the problem. :peace
 
1. Negotiate what? The "Obamacare" Law is a done deal. It passed both Houses and was upheld by SCOTUS. That the minority now blackmails the majority by withholding a debt increase is a travesty. It's the unrelated spending Bill that is the issue, not the ACA.

Any law is up for debate at any time. Funding is up for debate at any time.

There is no constitutional requirement -- nor God-given right -- to a clean debt ceiling increase. Legislation is a political process which requires compromise and negotiation. Not one single point of legislation is beyond debate, ever.

The side which refuses to come to the table is the side which causes things to fail. When the Republicans do it, it's their fault. When the Democrats do it, as in this case, it's THEIR fault.


2. The nonsense is in the fact that once it's done the courts can do whatever they want--it'll be over.

And the courts can quash it down, exactly as I said. Thank you for explaining why the only "nonsense" was your response.


It's asking forgiveness, not permission.

That is a totalitarian way to govern, completely antithetical to our constitutional system, but as I said, I gather you're OK with that, and you are not alone.

(And by the way, asking for forgiveness instead of permission makes you, in every case, an ass. Even if you get the forgiveness, you're still an ass. You've just been forgiven for being one.)


And, given that the president has only one of these three options: Default, Confiscation or ignoring Congress, the American People will forgive the latter.

Without Congress, the President has no power to do anything here. Only Congress can tax and spend. Period. If they do not authorize him to spend, he cannot spend.

Your preferences as to what he does are entirely, 100%, laughably beside the point.
 
Indeed it is, passed on a straight party line vote, unlike any other major social legislation in modern history. And that is the source of the problem. :peace

Well, just because the GOP lacked votes to stop it does not mean it's not a legitimate law. :roll:
 
1. Any law is up for debate at any time. Funding is up for debate at any time.

There is no constitutional requirement -- nor God-given right -- to a clean debt ceiling increase. Legislation is a political process which requires compromise and negotiation. Not one single point of legislation is beyond debate, ever.

The side which refuses to come to the table is the side which causes things to fail. When the Republicans do it, it's their fault. When the Democrats do it, as in this case, it's THEIR fault.




2. And the courts can quash it down, exactly as I said. Thank you for explaining why the only "nonsense" was your response.




That is a totalitarian way to govern, completely antithetical to our constitutional system, but as I said, I gather you're OK with that, and you are not alone.

(And by the way, asking for forgiveness instead of permission makes you, in every case, an ass. Even if you get the forgiveness, you're still an ass. You've just been forgiven for being one.)




3. Without Congress, the President has no power to do anything here. Only Congress can tax and spend. Period. If they do not authorize him to spend, he cannot spend.

Your preferences as to what he does are entirely, 100%, laughably beside the point.
1. There is no negotiation with raising the debt ceiling--that's the point. Congress, after all, passed the budget which they knew required extending the debt. The time to negotiate was then.
2. After the fact. Which does nothing. As I said.
3. Uh, no. DO yourself a favor and read up on all the things a president can do without Congressional approval. Seriously.
 
1. There is no negotiation with raising the debt ceiling--that's the point.

That's completely idiotic. That's exactly the opposite of "the point" of the debt ceiling -- the entire purpose it was put into place to begin with was to force a reexamination of spending every time the debt comes close to it. Otherwise, there's no point in having it, whatsoever.

Obama himself had no problem understanding this a few years ago when he tried to do to Bush exactly what the Republicans are trying to do to him now.

A serious case of "the shoe's on the other foot" syndrome, here.

Congress, after all, passed the budget which they knew required extending the debt. The time to negotiate was then.

This is babble that not even you, as its author, understand what it means.

And guess what, ducks -- this IS the negotiation before they pass the budget! Well, it would be, if one side weren't steadfastly refusing that negotiation (while insisting on "compromise").


2. After the fact. Which does nothing. As I said.

First of all, that's stupid on its face. Actions by the other branches are quashed and reversed by the courts all the time.

Second, once again, your saying this is an approval of the President using authority which he does not have to do an unconstitutional thing, and your justification of it is "so? No one can stop him."

I'd say your education has failed you, but perhaps it's simply that you're comfortable with despotism as long as you support the despot.


3. Uh, no. DO yourself a favor and read up on all the things a president can do without Congressional approval. Seriously.

How about you specify, as regards any of these issues? What specific authority does he have to do anything you're saying here? Cite it. Again -- specifically.
 
Well, just because the GOP lacked votes to stop it does not mean it's not a legitimate law. :roll:

It means that it's the only major social legislation passed since 1900 without bipartisan support. That bipartisan support is what made Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Civil Rights Act "settled" law. That's why Roe v Wade, imposed by judicial fiat rather than bipartisan legislation, remains "unsettled" in that it's still a frequent target of challenge. There is no doubt that ACA is the law of the land; politically it's still fair game.:peace
 
I don't believe it was doomed from the outset, but I do believe it became doomed when we started the practice of social welfare programs. If people couldn't vote themselves money and benefits (both at the individual and corporate levels), and were instead voting what is best for the country as a whole, we'd still have the greatest country around. The founding principles were rock solid. It just took some evolution in thought and culture, which did, in fact, happen. The problem nowadays is that everyone just wants their piece of the pie, and that pie should not exist imo.

This mindset is why America is doomed....this dogma have been so effective on the right it time and time again makes republican voters ....act against their own interests.
The biggest welfare recipient buddy ...is not the handful of poor urban blacks ....it's the corporations and their lobbyist and the very politicians who enact laws to fatten their wallets.

Why ....why is it so hard for you to understand that the people winning this battle isn't the poor or the dwindling middle class without much power...why is that so hard to see?? :roll:
 
This mindset is why America is doomed....this dogma have been so effective on the right it time and time again makes republican voters ....act against their own interests.
The biggest welfare recipient buddy ...is not the handful of poor urban blacks ....it's the corporations and their lobbyist and the very politicians who enact laws to fatten their wallets.

Why ....why is it so hard for you to understand that the people winning this battle isn't the poor or the dwindling middle class without much power...why is that so hard to see?? :roll:

Your interlocutor's post doesn't focus at all on "poor urban blacks." Only yours does. Why is it so hard for you to debate your interlocutor's actual position?:peace
 
Your interlocutor's post doesn't focus at all on "poor urban blacks." Only yours does. Why is it so hard for you to debate your interlocutor's actual position?:peace

It infuriates me when people on the right focus on the poor. And let's not try to spit hairs here ....Newt Gingrich in the last campaign have shown how well the code words works.

When you people have an issue and send their e-mail to your congressmen. You are lucky if that e-mail ever gets read by their $15/hr clerk.

When Jamie Dimon who's the CEO of JP Morgan have an issue ....LOL...do you think he too send's an e-mail to his congress representative?

Or does he (Jamie Dimon) pick up the phone ....speed dial Obama ....and tell Obama to leave whatever meeting he's in to talk to him?

The petty mindset time and time again displayed by the right is what will doom this country. Their refusal to understand that a few $1000 spent in a poor community is nothing near to the $Billions ...$Trillions ...being taken away by the banks and wall street!!
 
Here's a really interesting article which points out that almost all of the systems of government which split power between a president and a legislature have failed. The one lone exception--us.
Jonathan Chait on the Government Shutdown -- New York Magazine



Of course, the president probably could ignore Congress and raise the debt ceiling by executive order....but, either way, whether congress blackmails the president or he does an end around, once we go down that road, our system of government is doomed.

Of course its doomed. Everything human is. Your children will die. Your home will be reduced to dust. They Pyramids will be scattered particles at some point in the future.

But what is dooming the United States is not the division of power, but that our sole requirement to grant the franchise to an adult citizen without a felony record is a pulse.
 
Of course its doomed. Everything human is. Your children will die. Your home will be reduced to dust. They Pyramids will be scattered particles at some point in the future.

But what is dooming the United States is not the division of power, but that our sole requirement to grant the franchise to an adult citizen without a felony record is a pulse.
I don't think that's it because most true idiots don't vote. We do, however, have a nasty habit of reelecting incumbents at an extremely high rate--over 90%, IIRC.
 
That's completely idiotic. That's exactly the opposite of "the point" of the debt ceiling -- the entire purpose it was put into place to begin with was to force a reexamination of spending every time the debt comes close to it. Otherwise, there's no point in having it, whatsoever.

Obama himself had no problem understanding this a few years ago when he tried to do to Bush exactly what the Republicans are trying to do to him now.

A serious case of "the shoe's on the other foot" syndrome, here.



This is babble that not even you, as its author, understand what it means.

And guess what, ducks -- this IS the negotiation before they pass the budget! Well, it would be, if one side weren't steadfastly refusing that negotiation (while insisting on "compromise").




First of all, that's stupid on its face. Actions by the other branches are quashed and reversed by the courts all the time.

Second, once again, your saying this is an approval of the President using authority which he does not have to do an unconstitutional thing, and your justification of it is "so? No one can stop him."

I'd say your education has failed you, but perhaps it's simply that you're comfortable with despotism as long as you support the despot.




How about you specify, as regards any of these issues? What specific authority does he have to do anything you're saying here? Cite it. Again -- specifically.
WHen you and the wife sit down to make a budget, do you negotiate on what to spend after the credit card comes do or before you spend the money?

Babble. Heh.
 
I don't think that's it because most true idiots don't vote. We do, however, have a nasty habit of reelecting incumbents at an extremely high rate--over 90%, IIRC.

What do mean? The Democrats bus amazingly ignorant people by the thousands to the polling stations on election day.
 
WHen you and the wife sit down to make a budget, do you negotiate on what to spend after the credit card comes do or before you spend the money?

Babble. Heh.

Yeah, babble. This post is another example of it. Your analogy fails completely, as this situation is entirely unlike it, and you still haven't even tried to answer my questions about what gives the President specific authority to do anything you say.

So, babble, indeed.
 
What do mean? The Democrats bus amazingly ignorant people by the thousands to the polling stations on election day.

No. That's the Right with their church buses.
 
1. Yeah, babble. This post is another example of it. Your analogy fails completely, as this situation is entirely unlike it, and 2. you still haven't even tried to answer my questions about what gives the President specific authority to do anything you say.

So, babble, indeed.
1. Why did the GOP pass the budget if they are so opposed to it?

2. THe president has three choices.
A. Default on the US bills due
B. Confiscate revenue
C. Ignore Congress

What part of A, B or C do you fail to grasp?
 
1. Why did the GOP pass the budget if they are so opposed to it?

Opposed to what? Budgets? They're not opposed to budgets.


2. THe president has three choices.
A. Default on the US bills due
B. Confiscate revenue
C. Ignore Congress

What part of A, B or C do you fail to grasp?

I don't fail to grasp anything. It's you who's failed to grasp the question -- what gives him the authority to do any of those things, particularly B and C?
 
Opposed to what? Budgets? They're not opposed to budgets.




I don't fail to grasp anything. It's you who's failed to grasp the question -- what gives him the authority to do any of those things, particularly B and C?
1. Well..they are refusing to fund the budget they passed. So, they must be opposed to something.

2. If a person has a choice between A, B or C; obviously they have to chose one.
 
1. Well..they are refusing to fund the budget they passed. So, they must be opposed to something.

This is just plain stupid. Which "budget" of theirs are they refusing to "fund"? You have no idea what's even going on.


2. If a person has a choice between A, B or C; obviously they have to chose one.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you what gives him the authority. You obviously have no answer. You would have come off better had you just stayed away from the thread.
 
Here's a really interesting article which points out that almost all of the systems of government which split power between a president and a legislature have failed. The one lone exception--us.
Jonathan Chait on the Government Shutdown -- New York Magazine



Of course, the president probably could ignore Congress and raise the debt ceiling by executive order....but, either way, whether congress blackmails the president or he does an end around, once we go down that road, our system of government is doomed.

Our founding fathers and framers called political parties factions. They feared once political parties came into being then it would be party over country. Their fears have been realized.
 
Back
Top Bottom