• 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!

Obama, Boehner at war over debt talk collapse

Obama is just proving that he has the maturity level of a child. They way is arrogantly attacking Republicans and ignoring the faults of the Democrats only shows his lack of leadership skills. It's extremely immature and unprofessional to order around those you need to compromise with. His sheer disrespect is disgusting in my opinion.

The white house is the bully pulpit. Since there has been little if any desire for the GOP to compromise on the debt ceiling, this should be expected given the urgency of the situation.
 
The white house is the bully pulpit. Since there has been little if any desire for the GOP to compromise on the debt ceiling, this should be expected given the urgency of the situation.

I wish he'd been using it all along.
 
75% through Obama's presidency and he still isn't responsible for anything. So much for that whole change thing.

The true believers on either side never think they have any fault. To read what some people say here, you'd think that the economy was doing great until Obama took office. I've even seen it called an "imaginary recession." Sorry, but no. It was a real recession, and it did start with Bush. There's plenty of fault for Obama, but the world under Bush was not a utopia.
 
Sorry, but you are talking to the wrong person. I have always believed that both parties are at fault and neither follow the Constitution. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug Program and No Child Left Behind are certainly programs that the Federal Government is not authorized by the Constitution to handle.

As for the discussion on the Constitution, if you would like, I can point you to at least one, if not several, threads where liberals are arguing that the Constitution is virtually limitless in authorizing the Federal Government to act. Are you saying that modern liberals don't believe that? If so, please show us evidence of that.

I'd agree, but I find your "Madison and Hamilton" statement interesting. Madison and Hamilton didn't agree on what it said. You'd think that they would know, but they profoundly disagreed about it.

If the people that wrote the thing can't agree on what it says, you can't expect us to agree 200+ years later.
 
I'd agree, but I find your "Madison and Hamilton" statement interesting. Madison and Hamilton didn't agree on what it said. You'd think that they would know, but they profoundly disagreed about it.

If the people that wrote the thing can't agree on what it says, you can't expect us to agree 200+ years later.
Therefor our founding fathers gave us a process for for called amendments, it the process today that is being neglected, bypassed, overlooked and lastly ignored.
 
The white house is the bully pulpit.

Indeed. In fact, the President can't even draft legislation - only veto it or pass it and then enforce it.

And revenue bills originate in the House, which the GOP controls right now.

So I think the Speaker of the House is more culpable of this issue than the President is.
 
It's either rule or ruin with them. They are so out of touch with mainstream America. Bought and paid for by interest groups and lobbyists and too ***** to stand up to the tea party whackos in fear of losing votes. Screw the people.

Well, I hate to say it but we deserve it. American's voted these clowns into the office before the last pile of ****, they were previously kicked out for, was even dry. read 'em and weep America. You wanted 'em, you got 'em. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and as sure as a dog returns to his own vomit, Americans let the GOP shysters back in.

You get what you deserve.
You need to control your seething hatred, dude.
 
It is about time Boehner grew a pair and did what the country needed, not what the politicians need. Good for him.
 
How long has reading comprehension been a problem? The government is made up of Republicans and Democrats. Deltabtry is saying a POX on both parties, but you just fail to comprehend English. And during the Clinton Era, where were the GOP? Weren't they in control of the co-equal branch of Congress? How many times did President Clinton veto welfare reform before he saw the light and took credit for changing it?

Deltabtry is the one who is correct here. The stitch is not.

But the fact remains that when it comes to the debt, one party is more to blame than the other, as my post clearly shows
 
Seriously? You don't understand how we could have a budget surplus and govt debt?

Even after I already explained it?

So we have a surplus?
 
The problem with your solution has been proven right here on this site. The Constitution no longer has any meaning to people on the left; except for what they want it to mean. Madison and Hamilton knew nothing about the Constitution. Modern liberals are the only ones who understand the "living" Constitution.

The rightwingers love the Constitution so much, they can't stop calling for it to be changed.
 
I take it you do not recall the speech President Obama gave chiding Cong. Ryan's budget as Ryan was sitting in the audience at the invitation of the President.

I take it you do not recall the republican shouting "You Lie!!" during a SOTU speech
 
I take it you do not recall the republican shouting "You Lie!!" during a SOTU speech

So you believe in supporting a classless act, to the death.
 
So wait. How do you explain $4trillion in accrued debt in 2.5 years, then? When we had a dem controlled white house, senate, and house?

Easy

1) Obama has to pay interest on all the debt accumulated by Reagan, GHWB, and bush* because it's the law

2) Obama had to spend TARP money in FY2009 and FY2010 because it's the law

3) Obama has to fund Medicare D, passed by republicans, because it's the law

4) Obama has to fund all the pgms in the pork laden Farm, Energy and Transportation bills passed by repulicans, because it's the law

5) Obama has to fund the HSA because it's the law

6) Obama has to fund the TSA because it's the law

7) Obama had to pay unemployment insurance to all the unemployed created by bush* because it's the law

All of those expensive spending bills were passed by a republican congress (except UI, which has been around for decades) and signed into law by a republican president

But it's all Obamas' fault
 
I'd agree, but I find your "Madison and Hamilton" statement interesting. Madison and Hamilton didn't agree on what it said. You'd think that they would know, but they profoundly disagreed about it.

If the people that wrote the thing can't agree on what it says, you can't expect us to agree 200+ years later.

"didn't agree" is a massive understatement. Their disagreement is what led to the two party system
 
So you believe in supporting a classless act, to the death.

No, I don't support the classlessness of interrupting a speech but I do support politicians speaking their mind.

It's the rightwingers who support classlessness. In fact, they applaud it
 
Last edited:
Therefor our founding fathers gave us a process for for called amendments, it the process today that is being neglected, bypassed, overlooked and lastly ignored.

Sure, but if it's already Constitutional, then there's no need to amend right? Isn't that why the push to amend to ban gay marriage? If it wasn't allowed, there would be no need to change the Constitution.

So basically, if you can't agree on what is already allowed, how can you agree on what needs to be changed?
 
I'd agree, but I find your "Madison and Hamilton" statement interesting. Madison and Hamilton didn't agree on what it said. You'd think that they would know, but they profoundly disagreed about it.

If the people that wrote the thing can't agree on what it says, you can't expect us to agree 200+ years later.

Please allow me to provide a bit of historical perspective to your comments. First, your characterization of Hamilton and Madison is not totally accurate. In the convention, Madison and Hamilton differed in degree over federalism. Hamilton, at that time, was more of a nationalist than one who believed in federalism. However, in the Convention, each said the following, "He [Madison] had stated in Philadelphia, "I mean however, to preserve the state rights with the same care, as I would trials by jury," so dear to the hearts of the Founders. "One gentleman alone (Col. Hamilton)," Dr. William Johnson stated in the Convention, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the State Govts." And, Hamilton stated in the Convention that he alone stood for what he did and no one agreed with him. So, for Hamilton's role in the Convention itself, he was alone and lost the argument to Madison and others.

But then came the selling of the Constitution to the delegates of the State Ratifying Conventions. Here, Hamilton played a key role, along with Madison, in convincing the people of the States to ratify the Constitution that Hamilton had previously not agreed to.

Next, the Federalist Papers were written mostly by Hamilton and Madison. When you read those papers you find very little difference between the two Founders.

The plan reported by the convention, by extending the authority of the federal head to the individual citizens of the several States, will enable the government to employ the ordinary magistracy of each, in the execution of its laws. It is easy to perceive that this will tend to destroy, in the common apprehension, all distinction between the sources from which they might proceed; and will give the federal government the same advantage for securing a due obedience to its authority which is enjoyed by the government of each State, in addition to the influence on public opinion which will result from the important consideration of its having power to call to its assistance and support the resources of the whole Union. It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 27

We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it, and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system the aspect of an entire transformation of the old. In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. - James Madison, Federalist # 40

The principles established in a former paper teach us that the States will retain all PRE-EXISTING authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union, and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to the Union, with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible. Though these principles may not apply with the same force to the judiciary as to the legislative power, yet I am inclined to think that they are, in the main, just with respect to the former, as well as the latter. And under this impression, I shall lay it down as a rule, that the State courts will RETAIN the jurisdiction they now have, unless it appears to be taken away in one of the enumerated modes. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 82

At the time of the Ratification Conventions, Hamilton, like Madison, was a salesman for the idea that the Constitution was one of a limited government due to enumerated powers. In fact, on June 17, 1788, Alexander Hamilton spoke to the New York delegation and said this, "The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation." And, on the same day, he said, "While the constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, the states, must, by every, rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is totally inadmissible." More evidence that Hamilton had converted, at least temporarily, to the concept of federalism.

After the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton became Secretary of the Treasury. It was at this time that he and Madison parted ways. However, this is after the Convention, and more importantly, it is after the Ratification Conventions where both stood side-by-side and provided the same thoughts about limited government with the States having sovereignty over those things not enumerated as authority to the Federal Government.

I could provide much more, but I think this will get across my point.
 
Back
Top Bottom