• 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 aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Conservative said:
You are about to see the will of the people as Congress starts repealing laws that created the massive social policies that are bankrupting the country. there is no question that Congress can make the laws including the welfare programs but that doesn't mean that was the intent of the Founders. What Congress has found out is that they can fund their own existence forever by keeping people dependent and that sets up what happened on Nov. 2. Going to be fun watching all these bleeding heart libreral leeches squealing as their power is taken away.
Click to expand...

Ah, unless your suggesting that simply because Republicans control the house, they'll be able to break Senate Filibuster, and the Presidents Veto, I unno. Maybe by magic, or the grace of god or something... THE CONSTITUTION!
 
Whovian said:
So, you did not show me where I claimed to have one, or that I said what you seem to thnk I did.

Thank you. Your apology is accepted.
Click to expand...

I never claimed you did. I was merely taking the argument against welfare payments to its logical conclusion. It matters not at all to me what you said or what you did not say. It matters not at all to me what you believe or what you do not believe. It matters not at all to me what you think about the contents of the Constitution or what it may allow or does not allow. And it matters not at all to me what you think of my views of the Constitution and what it allows or does not allow.

All that is irrelevant.

Reality is all that counts. And reality is that social welfare programs have been in the general welfare of the people of the USA for a very very long time now and that is simply the way it is.
 
randel said:
so here you admit that he didnt say anything about killing seniors....thanks for finally coming clean and admitting your mistake.....you go from 'he said it' to '....no president would be stupid enough...':lamo
Click to expand...

Oh come on....Are you really saying that only explicit statements can be attributed to what politicans intent are? Well, we might as well shut down the boards now, because there is nothing else to talk about. It is the hight of absurdness to suggest that we must only stick to litteral words, if that was indeed the case then about 80% of your previous arguments against Bush would be moot.

Now can we discuss this like adults, or do you wish to continue in the absurd?


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
I never claimed you did. I was merely taking the argument against welfare payments to its logical conclusion. It matters not at all to me what you said or what you did not say. It matters not at all to me what you believe or what you do not believe. It matters not at all to me what you think about the contents of the Constitution or what it may allow or does not allow. And it matters not at all to me what you think of my views of the Constitution and what it allows or does not allow.

All that is irrelevant.

Reality is all that counts. And reality is that social welfare programs have been in the general welfare of the people of the USA for a very very long time now and that is simply the way it is.
Click to expand...


Problem is that liberals misinterpret the General Welfare clause to mean entitlements of the people when the correct reading points to the enumerated powers.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Problem is that liberals misinterpret the General Welfare clause to mean entitlements of the people when the correct reading points to the enumerated powers.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Your problem is not with liberals or progressives, with Communists or marxists, with Trotskyites or socialists, or with welfare queens or food stamp pushers. Your problem is with the US Supreme Court who has not seen it your way.
 
haymarket said:
Your problem is not with liberals or progressives, with Communists or marxists, with Trotskyites or socialists, or with welfare queens or food stamp pushers. Your problem is with the US Supreme Court who has not seen it your way.
Click to expand...

With Justices on that court that believe that we should be looking to foreign law to determine our course, I think those justices do a disservice to the bench, and this country. There is a lot wrong with the SCOTUS today. But there is much wrong with our government right now as well.


j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
So will they be waiving the interest payments from now on???

Thank you for revealing you understand nothing about the topic.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the interest is $414 billion while the revenues are $2.2 trillion (est)?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States 2011 - Charts Tables

If you pay the interest, that leaves roughly $1.7 trillion to pay for everything the Federal Government does. The mandatory spending (medicare, medicaid, ss, etc) is $2 trillion after you subtract that interest. So, you cut all the programs by 50%. No choice. That leaves discretionary spending and 700 billion that can be spent. Granted, you don't pay down the debt, but at least you can maintain the current debt level.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What I'm insinuating is that everyone talks about spending cuts, practically everyone is in favor of cutting spending, but when it comes down to specific cuts, people want to protect their favorite program.

Conservatives, self described, tend to want to cut "social programs", by which they mean anything but the military.
Liberals are perfectly willing to cut back the military, but aren't adverse to adding more social programs.

Both have to be cut back, along with tax increases if we're going to ever balance the budget. That's the reality that no one wants to face.
Click to expand...

:D you sound like Glenn Beck.
 
haymarket said:
Your problem is not with liberals or progressives, with Communists or marxists, with Trotskyites or socialists, or with welfare queens or food stamp pushers. Your problem is with the US Supreme Court who has not seen it your way.
Click to expand...

well yeah. much as they claim otherwise, the SCOTUS isn't infallible.
 
j-mac said:
Problem is that liberals misinterpret the General Welfare clause to mean entitlements of the people when the correct reading points to the enumerated powers.

j-mac
Click to expand...

And Republicans misinterpret it to fund farm subsidies in the mostly rural red states.
 
haymarket said:
And you also DO NOT have a Supreme Court ruling stating that social welfare programs are NOT in the general welfare power of Congress.

Case stays closed. Thank you too.
Click to expand...

Who said they were, I am saying that they are bankrupting us and many will be repealed. Congress does have that authority, doesn't it?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ah, unless your suggesting that simply because Republicans control the house, they'll be able to break Senate Filibuster, and the Presidents Veto, I unno. Maybe by magic, or the grace of god or something... THE CONSTITUTION!
Click to expand...

Incrementalism plus the fact that there are more Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2012. It all starts today, the American people are in the cutting mood.
 
Conservative said:
Incrementalism plus the fact that there are more Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2012. It all starts today, the American people are in the cutting mood.
Click to expand...

That I have no doubt. We can agree on that.

Of course we can also agree the biggest issue will be what is to be cut...

Oh I can't wait for all the fun! :)
 
only need to cut one thing: the Fed... then congress can print away with no debt. but then the world would realize we're monetizing our debt, hmmm lemme think this thing over.
 
j-mac said:
With Justices on that court that believe that we should be looking to foreign law to determine our course, I think those justices do a disservice to the bench, and this country. There is a lot wrong with the SCOTUS today. But there is much wrong with our government right now as well.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Justices on the SC have changed over several times since welfare programs started? But no SC has struck them down as a violation of the Constitution.

If one want to discuss the merits of welfare programs for the poor, that is a debate we can have. If one keeps insisting that social welfare programs are not authorized by the Constitution they might as well go out and tilt at windmills.
 
j-mac said:
Oh come on....Are you really saying that only explicit statements can be attributed to what politicans intent are? Well, we might as well shut down the boards now, because there is nothing else to talk about. It is the hight of absurdness to suggest that we must only stick to litteral words, if that was indeed the case then about 80% of your previous arguments against Bush would be moot.

Now can we discuss this like adults, or do you wish to continue in the absurd?


j-mac
Click to expand...
sure j, we can discuss it like adults, when do you intend to act like one? you lied, you were caught....obama said nothing of the sort.
 
Hatuey said:
And Republicans misinterpret it to fund farm subsidies in the mostly rural red states.
Click to expand...

Yes, because farms, and affordable food are a bad thing right? Look, I am not saying that repubs are another side of the coin when it comes to remaining true to our founding principles, but we need to get back to those principles, and so far, repubs seem to have gotten that message, where as demo's, seems would rather just trash it all together, and make up the rules as they go.


j-mac
 
randel said:
sure j, we can discuss it like adults, when do you intend to act like one? you lied, you were caught....obama said nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


BULL SH**!!!!!! I lied nowhere. I believe that Obama's intent, along with the intent of his circle of advisors/Czars is to dry up the care for the elderly, thus resulting in letting them die. Now you can be disingenuous and keep spouting 'show me the exact words in succession where he said that literally,' or you can have the larger argument and make the case of why so many on the liberal side, your side of the debate, would turn their backs on senior citizens in this country. Personally, I think it is a selfish bent.


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
You do realize that the Justices on the SC have changed over several times since welfare programs started? But no SC has struck them down as a violation of the Constitution.

If one want to discuss the merits of welfare programs for the poor, that is a debate we can have. If one keeps insisting that social welfare programs are not authorized by the Constitution they might as well go out and tilt at windmills.
Click to expand...

What part of the statement that social welfare isn't a violation of the Constitution do you not understand? It is however a violation of the intent of our Founders who believed social problems were personal and better handled at the state and local levels. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress that ability but having the ability is quite different from having the responsibility to do something about social problems. Our Founders knew that power corrupts thus they put the power at the state level which is closer to the people where it belongs. Congress has increased the power of the Federal Govt. all in the name of compassion but all that really did was increase the debt and expand the social problems we have.
 
haymarket said:
You do realize that the Justices on the SC have changed over several times since welfare programs started? But no SC has struck them down as a violation of the Constitution.

If one want to discuss the merits of welfare programs for the poor, that is a debate we can have. If one keeps insisting that social welfare programs are not authorized by the Constitution they might as well go out and tilt at windmills.
Click to expand...

Ok, please provide for me, using the parameter that I said earlier about enumerated powers, where in the hell the constitution provides for generational welfare.


j-mac
 
Conservative said:
Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress that ability but having the ability is quite different from having the responsibility to do something about social problems.

Our Founders knew that power corrupts thus they put the power at the state level which is closer to the people where it belongs. Congress has increased the power of the Federal Govt. all in the name of compassion but all that really did was increase the debt and expand the social problems we have.
Click to expand...

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
 
Grant said:
It's all about money, Dittohead, and bureaucracy. If the government wants you to wait two years for a hip transplant, as happens, you will wait two years. Or you will go to a country, as Canadians have been doing, to get the job done sooner.

You can approve of Obamacare out of ideology or philosophically but it cannot be supported from either a medical or patient-care point of view. The doctor/patient relationship was eroded when big health-care insurance companies became involved and it will be eroded further when government gets involved. It's just the way it works, and we all instinctively know that
Click to expand...

First, "Obamacare" is not a national health care plan like exists in Canada, England, France, or any other modern nation.

Second, you can support the plan that exists in those countries from a cost containment point of view.

Third, the stories of Canadians flocking across the border for health care that they can't get in their own country are just that: stories. They were told when "Hillarycare" was being proposed and debated, and seem to have become believed as fact.
 
Canadian Premier Comes To US For Healthcare

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision... “This was my heart, my choice and my health,” Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla. “I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”..

The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn’t closing properly, creating a leakage.

He said he was told at the time that the problem was “moderate” and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.

Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said...

Williams said he didn’t announce his departure south of the border because he didn’t want to create “a media gong show,” but added that criticism would’ve followed him had he chose to have surgery in Canada.

“I would’ve been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. … I accept that. That’s public life,” he said.

“(But) this is not a unique phenomenon to me. This is something that happens with lots of families throughout this country, so I make no apologies for that.”..
Click to expand...


you know what lots of stories are? a trend.
 
Conservative said:
What part of the statement that social welfare isn't a violation of the Constitution do you not understand? It is however a violation of the intent of our Founders who believed social problems were personal and better handled at the state and local levels. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress that ability but having the ability is quite different from having the responsibility to do something about social problems. Our Founders knew that power corrupts thus they put the power at the state level which is closer to the people where it belongs. Congress has increased the power of the Federal Govt. all in the name of compassion but all that really did was increase the debt and expand the social problems we have.
Click to expand...

Which of th Founding Fathers do you channel?

Is it a conversation or do they simply speak to you?

How often do you channel this FF or FF's?

Could you ask Jefferson to clear up this whole messy Sally Hemmings thing please?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, please provide for me, using the parameter that I said earlier about enumerated powers, where in the hell the constitution provides for generational welfare.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 & 18 allow Congress to provide laws providing welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom