Was America Doomed from the Outset?

[Perotista]

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.

Perhaps not, one can always walk away without choosing either A, B, or C. Sort of a none of the above. Perhaps if nothing is there except what one considers bad choices, not making a choice is actually making one.

 

[Harshaw]

Perhaps not, one can always walk away without choosing either A, B, or C. Sort of a none of the above. Perhaps if nothing is there except what one considers bad choices, not making a choice is actually making one.

Yes, there are many options other than those three. But he still needs to explain how the President has the authority to do them. He claimed it was "nonsense" that he doesn't.

 

[Harshaw]

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.

Well, not quite. Madison believed that factions can't be prevented because liberty breeds them. His solution for them was a republican form of government where the states had a check on the passions of the people, i.e., the Senate.

 

[calamity]

Perhaps not, one can always walk away without choosing either A, B, or C. Sort of a none of the above. Perhaps if nothing is there except what one considers bad choices, not making a choice is actually making one.

Bills have to be paid. How can Obama walk away from that responsibility without defaulting, getting more money by confiscating it via taxes, or simply ignoring Congress and printing more cash through Treasury?

 

[Perotista]

Yes, there are many options other than those three. But he still needs to explain how the President has the authority to do them. He claimed it was "nonsense" that he doesn't.

Explanations help, then sometimes they just add to the confusion.

 

[Perotista]

Well, not quite. Madison believed that factions can't be prevented because liberty breeds them. His solution for them was a republican form of government where the states had a check on the passions of the people, i.e., the Senate.

That is until the 17th amendment. Then the senate stopped representing the states and became a miniture house represent people of the state instead of the state. I think I said that right?

 

[Harshaw]

Explanations help, then sometimes they just add to the confusion.

Doesn't matter. He claimed the notion that the President isn't authorized is "nonsense." He isn't even TRYING to show how he's authorized.

He's perfectly OK with the President doing illegal things as long they're illegal things he supports. Elsewhere, he's blasting Republicans for going "outside the Constitution." (When they're actually not.)

 

[Perotista]

Bills have to be paid. How can Obama walk away from that responsibility without defaulting, getting more money by confiscating it via taxes, or simply ignoring Congress and printing more cash through Treasury?

When it comes to the debt ceiling my eyes sometimes get glossed over. I wonder if these two parties from 2009 to today are the same parties from 2000 to 2008. Their roles are completely reversed. Here are the senate votes on raising the debt ceiling during the bush years.

2003 3 Dem for 35 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2004 2 Dem for 46 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2006 0 Dem for 44 Dems against 52 Rep for 3 Rep against

Change presidents and change political ideology when it comes to the debt ceiling, both parties do a 180 on the debt ceiling.
2009 59 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2010 60 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2012 52 Dems for 3 Dems against 1 Rep for 45 Rep against

Now as someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat, I still claim my Reform Party label. I see no core values here. I see wishey washey party politics depending on whom or which party occupies the White House.

 

[polgara]

When it comes to the debt ceiling my eyes sometimes get glossed over. I wonder if these two parties from 2009 to today are the same parties from 2000 to 2008. Their roles are completely reversed. Here are the senate votes on raising the debt ceiling during the bush years.

2003 3 Dem for 35 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2004 2 Dem for 46 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2006 0 Dem for 44 Dems against 52 Rep for 3 Rep against

Change presidents and change political ideology when it comes to the debt ceiling, both parties do a 180 on the debt ceiling.
2009 59 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2010 60 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2012 52 Dems for 3 Dems against 1 Rep for 45 Rep against

Now as someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat, I still claim my Reform Party label. I see no core values here. I see wishey washey party politics depending on whom or which party occupies the White House.

Pero, at this point, I would almost welcome wishy-washy instead of the extremes I'm witnessing! :2mad:

 

[Perotista]

Doesn't matter. He claimed the notion that the President isn't authorized is "nonsense." He isn't even TRYING to show how he's authorized.

He's perfectly OK with the President doing illegal things as long they're illegal things he supports. Elsewhere, he's blasting Republicans for going "outside the Constitution." (When they're actually not.)

Personally I think a president, any president who tries to borrow money without congress's approval is doing something unconstitutional. But it is not my opinion that counts. It those 9 folks in black robes opinion that does. The 16 amendment was written to guarentee that the U.S. would honor its civil war debts, but not the debts the confederacy incured. That is if that amendment is put into the context of history and as the original intent by those who wrote it. There is plenty of bio's from that time period and the journal of the House and Senate to back what I said up.

The reality of the situation is this country takes in approximately 3 trillion annually and unless the secretary of the treasury or the like decides not to service the debt in favor of lets say welfare payments or defense spending, there will be no default unless this nation default's as a result of some political ploy.

 

[calamity]

When it comes to the debt ceiling my eyes sometimes get glossed over. I wonder if these two parties from 2009 to today are the same parties from 2000 to 2008. Their roles are completely reversed. Here are the senate votes on raising the debt ceiling during the bush years.

2003 3 Dem for 35 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2004 2 Dem for 46 Dems against 50 Rep for 1 Rep against
2006 0 Dem for 44 Dems against 52 Rep for 3 Rep against

Change presidents and change political ideology when it comes to the debt ceiling, both parties do a 180 on the debt ceiling.
2009 59 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2010 60 Dems for 0 Dem against 1 Rep for 40 Rep against
2012 52 Dems for 3 Dems against 1 Rep for 45 Rep against

Now as someone who is not a Republican or a Democrat, I still claim my Reform Party label. I see no core values here. I see wishey washey party politics depending on whom or which party occupies the White House.

THere ya go. Proof that the Debt Ceiling vote is just a political football. A club for the minority party to wield over the heads of the majority.

 

[calamity]

Personally I think a president, any president who tries to borrow money without congress's approval is doing something unconstitutional. But it is not my opinion that counts. It those 9 folks in black robes opinion that does. The 16 amendment was written to guarentee that the U.S. would honor its civil war debts, but not the debts the confederacy incured. That is if that amendment is put into the context of history and as the original intent by those who wrote it. There is plenty of bio's from that time period and the journal of the House and Senate to back what I said up.

The reality of the situation is this country takes in approximately 3 trillion annually and unless the secretary of the treasury or the like decides not to service the debt in favor of lets say welfare payments or defense spending, there will be no default unless this nation default's as a result of some political ploy.

Good point.

 

[Perotista]

THere ya go. Proof that the Debt Ceiling vote is just a political football. A club for the minority party to wield over the heads of the majority.

Exactly, a way for the party who didn't win the white house to get back at the party who did.

 

[Jerry]

No, he can't. You have a woeful misunderstanding of what Execute Orders are and what they can do.

You should start proof reading your posts.

 

[Harshaw]

Personally I think a president, any president who tries to borrow money without congress's approval is doing something unconstitutional. But it is not my opinion that counts. It those 9 folks in black robes opinion that does. The 16 amendment was written to guarentee that the U.S. would honor its civil war debts, but not the debts the confederacy incured. That is if that amendment is put into the context of history and as the original intent by those who wrote it. There is plenty of bio's from that time period and the journal of the House and Senate to back what I said up.

The reality of the situation is this country takes in approximately 3 trillion annually and unless the secretary of the treasury or the like decides not to service the debt in favor of lets say welfare payments or defense spending, there will be no default unless this nation default's as a result of some political ploy.

I don't know that you are actually responding to me.

 

[Harshaw]

You should start proof reading your posts.

Oh, boo-hoo; I make a typo or drop a word every now and then. Did you have any problem understanding me?

It's funny that calamity liked your post, though, without trying to respond to mine. Yet another of his own threads he's given up on.

 

[Perotista]

I don't know that you are actually responding to me.

Who knows as the mind tends to wonder at times.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

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.

Interesting assessment, given the utter and complete disaster that ushered in social welfare, and also that social welfare is hardly a new thing anywhere in the developed world, some of which is doing much better than we are.

Also kind of depends on what you call welfare, don't it. Does public school count? How about police and fire service?

 

[Papa bull]

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.

Exactly. The beginning of the end came as soon as people got the idea that they could vote themselves into other peoples' pockets.

 

[Papa bull]

Interesting assessment, given the utter and complete disaster that ushered in social welfare, and also that social welfare is hardly a new thing anywhere in the developed world, some of which is doing much better than we are.

Also kind of depends on what you call welfare, don't it. Does public school count? How about police and fire service?

No. They don't count. The fire department can't send checks to you. The police department doesn't bring food to your door every month. The real problem of social welfare began when people got the idea that by voting for the right politicians, they could get the government to take money from others and have that money spent directly on them or actually receive the cash, itself.

 

[Jack Hays]

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!!

And to whom do you refer by "you people?" You raise some interesting points but they don't seem central to anyone else's argument. Perhaps you should start a thread?eace

 

[Papa bull]

And to whom do you refer by "you people?" You raise some interesting points but they don't seem central to anyone else's argument. Perhaps you should start a thread?eace

It seems like he's only interested in trying to rationalize the rampant fraud going on with the welfare program, particularly with SSDI with some vapid rhetoric about rich people/CEO's/bankers. It's not the topic. You're right. He should start a new thread about whatever it is he's complaining about and flesh it out with some facts.

 

[lizzie]

Also kind of depends on what you call welfare, don't it. Does public school count? How about police and fire service?

Municiple-type services benefit us all, not just a "special" segment of society. I support equal treatment under the law, and not special pet treatment for some.

 

[Papa bull]

Municiple-type services benefit us all, not just a "special" segment of society. I support equal treatment under the law, and not special pet treatment for some.

Lefties seem to be confused about the difference between the "general welfare" and "individual welfare".

 

[calamity]

Here's another article saying exactly what I have been arguing the past several pages: that Teasury must break the Law if Congress fails to raise the Debt Ceiling.

What happens if we breach the debt ceiling?
According to Morgan Stanley top economist Vincent Reinhart, the question becomes straightforward: Which law must the Secretary of the Treasury break?

In a column for DealBook, which is adapted from one of his notes to clients, he explains the choice facing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew:

If the Treasury is unwilling to stretch the definition of extraordinary measures, on the day that the Federal Reserve predicts that the Treasury will run out of cash in its account and the Treasury is bound by the debt ceiling, it suspends all payments and awaits instructions from the Treasury. As a result, the government’s principal economic officials will face the prospect of violating one of these three laws:

1. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 that establishes the debt ceiling;

2. The Federal Reserve Act that prohibits the Fed from lending directly to the Treasury; or,

3. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution that holds that the debt of the United States government, lawfully issued, will not be questioned


...Basically in Reinhart's formulation, Lew will opt to break the debt ceiling law, citing constitutional obligations to continue servicing the debt.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/morg...cide-which-law-to-break-2013-10#ixzz2h3IVierT