Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 233 of 233

Thread: Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

  1. #231
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    04-05-12 @ 08:14 PM

    Re: Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I agree that the Constitution did not change (in some key areas). The interpretation and use of the Constitution changed radically. If you think that was wrong, you may have a point, but that toothpaste has been out of the tube for 150 years. You can't put it back now.
    The interpretation did not change until the 20th Century. The first cases before the Supreme Court of the United States confirm my argument. It is interesting that Congress in the 1860s felt the need to pass the Founteenth Amendment in order to permanently codify the Civil Rights Act of 1866. If the Constitution changed as you believe it did, there would be no need for the Fourteenth Amendment.

    So far, you have not provided one iota of proof about the change that supposedly took place in the 1860s. You have shown that a President did overstep his authority when there probably was no need for such a deed. He could have gone for an amendment right then and there and it probably would have passed since the Southern States were not part of the Union. His bad deed offers no evidence of anything other than he overstepped his bounds. Congress pasing amendments when you say they changed the power and amendments were not needed belies your argument. And, as I stated earlier, there have been a few amendments since them. According to you, none were needed or necessary to affect change.

    Sorry, but I don't see any validity to your argument. If what you say had been true, our government has been a tyrannical government and not a constitutional republic for many decades. While I believe our government is somewhat tyrannical today, I don't think the evidence shows that it was over the last 45 years of the 19th Century.

    Unless you can show some evidence of this change at the time of the change, it will be my judgment that you are making up this theory and doing so out of thin air. If you think you can do so, please prove me wrong.

  2. #232
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:46 PM

    Re: Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no one is saying that the stimulus was 4.5T
    Numerous people have claimed it's 4.5T

    . I have seen several people point out that once you fully account for it it approaches 1T. and nobody blames the entire increase on those two factors along. we've had Cash for Clunkers, we've added another li'l war, we've expanded funding for every department except defense.... we've done alot of spending lately on alot of things.
    I haven't seen anyone claim its' only 1T.

    the government has grown from about 20.5% of GDP under Bush to 24.5% under Obama. But, since government does not tax itself the same as it taxes investment, production, and labor; as it increases it's share of the economy, it pushes down taxes as a % of GDP. That is the reason for your oversize deficit right there.
    And when the economy shrunk, that pushed up its' share of GDP. There are many factors.

    servicing the debt acquired under bush is not driving our deficit any more than servicing the debt acquired under Obama is.
    Absurd and not responsive. There's also the debt accumulated under reagan and ghwb. I've mentioned this several times

    on the contrary - i fully understand that cost. you don't seem to understand it's proportion to the rest of federal spending. Obama's spending hikes belong to him

    If you can show me where I've denied that Obama has responsibility for the things he's spent on, then I'll understand why you just said that. My point is that the 4.5T figure that is often cited (not by you) is inflated. And someone said that # because that's why I first posted here IIRC

    It was not small. but you are correct that that is far from the only piece of profligate spending that has been inflicted upon us.
    Reasonable. Let's say small compared the spending of bush*. If you take bush* spending pluse his tax cuts, and compare them to Obamas' spending and tax cuts, bush*'s are larger

    then Democrats share just as much the spending increases that Bush put it; more so since they actually wrote the budget for the last two years of his presidency.
    I disagree.

    indeed, but let's not revert to arguments about how most of Obama's ramped-up spending is somehow Bush's fault. let Bush take the blame for his own spending, and let Obama take the blame for his.
    Much of the increase in spending under Obama is the fault of bush*. In addition to the spending programs that I've mentioned, there is the reductions in revenue that bush* put in place

    Again, the fact that Obama has increased funding for that doesn't mean that bush* is absolved of responsibility for the spending on education that passed under bush*

    I agree. We only disagree with the relative amts attributable to each, which makes me wonder why you're arguing with me, and not those who assign Obama all the responsibility for the increase in spending since 2009
    Last edited by sangha; 07-26-11 at 12:00 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #233
    I'm not-low all the time

    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Hyde Park
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 AM

    Re: Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Excuse me, but that debunked years ago. It was a projected surplus, and not real.
    In kind: Learn how to read a balance sheet.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts