Obama Total Disregard Congress or Consitution

[ninjadude]

Assuming one reads, writes and understands the English language, and is familiar with and understands the law including the US Constitution, one does not need another person to tell him whether or not a given statute complies with the demands of the USC.

I'm sorry but our laws do not work like that. You can whine about unconstitutional all you want.

but the statute was unconstitutional BEFORE it was formally declared as such.

Again. It doesn't work that way. BTW, I agree that the Patriot Act and AUMF should be repealed.

That's why ACLU and many others opposed it, and made public statements to that effect.

that you BELIEVE it to be unconstitutional. Until it is RULED as such, it is a non-binding BELIEF.

Criminals "usually" have to be convicted? Do you mean that the person who kills another but gets away with it is actually NOT a criminal?

A closely held tenant of the US judicial system is innocent until proven guilty. It gets abused a lot. But no, just because you say a person killed someone is much different than proving it. No one is a "criminal" until proven so in a court of law.

If the Executive branch joins in on an assault on the document it is sworn to uphold, the executive has both violated the Constitution, which makes him both criminal and a traitor, and he has violated his oath of office.

But see again, this is your BELIEF. It is their BELIEF that they are upholding the document. Which is why we have a Supreme Court.

Edited December 28, 2013 by ninjadude

[Harte]

But that's not what's happening. The HHS administration is responsible for the implementation of the law - at their discretion. The law doesn't spell how every nuance.

You're right on this one Ninja.

If Obamacare is unconstitutional, it's not Obama's fault. It's the Senate and the House's fault for abdicating the responsibility for writing real and binding legislation and leaving the details to the Executive.

See, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while and a stopped clock is right twice a day... LOL

Harte

[Neognosis]

Bush's policies weren't for Obama to put the US in more debt than all other US Presidents combined.

Obama has not put the US in more debt than all other US Presidents combined.

If you think he has, please provide a reputable source.

[Harte]

When he took office, the debt was at 10.6 trillion. This represents "all previous presidents combined."

As of today, it's at 17.2 trillion with three years left to go.

He might still make it.

Please note that these figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Harte

[Frank Merton]

When he took office, the debt was at 10.6 trillion. This represents "all previous presidents combined."

As of today, it's at 17.2 trillion with three years left to go.

He might still make it.

Please note that these figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Harte

Nor are they adjusted for the size of the country. The real measure is dept per dollar of gnp, and it is headed down. I am not here to defend Obama, but I will defend deficit spending, which some have too much ideological opposition to without understanding the horrors of deflation and depression.

[Harte]

I'm with you on that Frank, buit I also see that there must be a limit somewhere.

I don't mean one must be legislated, I mean there is a point you should not reach, regardless of GNP. Not that I can say where that point might be.

Harte

[Yamato]

Obama has not put the US in more debt than all other US Presidents combined.

If you think he has, please provide a reputable source.

Plenty of websites discuss what the debt was when Obama took office and what the debt is expected to be when he leaves. He's the $10 trillion President.

Here's the national debt in 2017 at current rates

http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

[Pyridium]

If you like Obama, you will be able to keep him, period!

Unless we get a new Senate run by the Republicans. Then the house can bring up charges and the Senate will hold the trial. Simple. Bye, bye, Obama. You ridiculed congress long enough and you taught us to act with absolute power when given the chance.

How many different charges do you think he will face? He has changed Obama Care 14 times so far without congressional approval. Isn't that unconstitutional?

[ninjadude]

If Obamacare is unconstitutional, it's not Obama's fault. It's the Senate and the House's fault for abdicating the responsibility for writing real and binding legislation and leaving the details to the Executive.

but you're wrong here. Most legislation, including the ACA, is real and binding. And the implementation is left to the agency responsible.

[ninjadude]

I'm with you on that Frank, buit I also see that there must be a limit somewhere.

I don't mean one must be legislated, I mean there is a point you should not reach, regardless of GNP. Not that I can say where that point might be.

Most economists believe that to be a percentage of GDP. By that measure we are far, FAR away from the historical maximum that was achieved during WWII.

[ninjadude]

Unless we get a new Senate run by the Republicans.

except when the house becomes majority Democatic Party.

He has changed Obama Care 14 times so far without congressional approval. Isn't that unconstitutional?

It does not require congressional approval. The law's implementation is relegated to the HHS administration. So no, it is not unconstitutional.

[Yamato]

Most economists believe that to be a percentage of GDP. By that measure we are far, FAR away from the historical maximum that was achieved during WWII.

There's no excuse for it today. Unless you're a neocon trying to save the world from the Islamic plague, having less than stellar growth numbers or less than "full employment" whatever that means, is no reason to make the American people beholden to a gang of secretive centralized quasi-criminals. These Boomers need to shut up and deal without their historically unprecedented zero percent interest rates they're enjoying on the backs of our youth and unborn.

[spacecowboy342]

There's no excuse for it today. Unless you're a neocon trying to save the world from the Islamic plague, having less than stellar growth numbers or less than "full employment" whatever that means, is no reason to make the American people beholden to a gang of secretive centralized quasi-criminals. These Boomers need to shut up and deal without their historically unprecedented zero percent interest rates they're enjoying on the backs of our youth and unborn.

The problem is the military industrial complex is out of control and defense spending is bankrupting us. We spend more on defense than the next ten countries ranked by defense spending in a row after us. This is ridiculous

[Yamato]

The problem is the military industrial complex is out of control and defense spending is bankrupting us. We spend more on defense than the next ten countries ranked by defense spending in a row after us. This is ridiculous

It's not even spent on defense it's spent on military. Military spending is one example but it's only a part of the problem. The military industrial complex is inherent because government provides the contracts to the defense industry. Without government, many of these corporations would go out of business. I think national defense is the most valid reason for the government's existence in the first place, provided it doesn't turn into international offense.

But what about other examples government doesn't belong in? The medical industrial complex's deadly pills taken in their non-deadly doses, and the oil captains attending policy meetings with Dick Cheney behind closed doors are two more.

[spacecowboy342]

It's not even spent on defense it's spent on military. Military spending is one example but it's only a part of the problem. The military industrial complex is inherent because government provides the contracts to the defense industry. Without government, many of these corporations would go out of business. I think national defense is the most valid reason for the government's existence in the first place, provided it doesn't turn into international offense.

But what about other examples government doesn't belong in? The medical industrial complex's deadly pills taken in their non-deadly doses, and the oil captains attending policy meetings with Dick Cheney behind closed doors are two more.

How then is military spending any different from welfare for corporations? We can't afford to feed and house the poor or provide medical care for every one or education or job training but we continue to let military spending spiral out of control

[Yamato]

How then is military spending any different from welfare for corporations? We can't afford to feed and house the poor or provide medical care for every one or education or job training but we continue to let military spending spiral out of control

That's a good question. Perhaps the military is the most inherent form of corporate welfare there is.

But military spending levels off or even decreases in time. It's Medicare/Medicaid that are spiraling out of control.

[spacecowboy342]

That's a good question. Perhaps the military is the most inherent form of corporate welfare there is.

But military spending levels off or even decreases in time. It's Medicare/Medicaid that are spiraling out of control.

Yet every budget proposal increases military spending. I would suggest medicare/medicaide is necessary while increased military spending is not. We could afford to help people were we not in an arms race with ourselves

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/28/defense-spending-in-the-u-s-in-four-charts/

http://nation.time.com/2012/08/27/a-charts-worth-1000-words/

Edited December 29, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Harte]

but you're wrong here. Most legislation, including the ACA, is real and binding. And the implementation is left to the agency responsible.

No legislation in the past granted as much discretion to the Secretary (namely) and the President (by proxy) that could have been addressed in the bill itself.

Harte

[Neognosis]

Military spending does prop up a lot of companies and pay a lot of salaries.

If you are going to allow manufacturing to leave this country and do nothing about it, the economy needs SOMETHING to be made or processed here, other wise there will be no jobs.

You have no idea how many livelihoods are effected by defense spending, for better or worse. Spend it there or spend it on more unemployment.... unless you fix the manufacturing problem

[spacecowboy342]

Military spending does prop up a lot of companies and pay a lot of salaries.

If you are going to allow manufacturing to leave this country and do nothing about it, the economy needs SOMETHING to be made or processed here, other wise there will be no jobs.

You have no idea how many livelihoods are effected by defense spending, for better or worse. Spend it there or spend it on more unemployment.... unless you fix the manufacturing problem

Which is why we need tariffs to make American labor competitive to third world labor and to stop companies from profiting from moving to countries with no regard for environmental issues. And maybe we can stop blaming food programs for the poor for our deficits when it is welfare for corporations that is bankrupting us.

[Harte]

Which is why we need tariffs to make American labor competitive to third world labor and to stop companies from profiting from moving to countries with no regard for environmental issues. And maybe we can stop blaming food programs for the poor for our deficits when it is welfare for corporations that is bankrupting us.

Welcome to forcing Americans to pay 1500 dollars for a 30 inch flatscreen.

IOW, welcome to losing the next election.

Harte

[Neognosis]

Welcome to forcing Americans to pay 1500 dollars for a 30 inch flatscreen.

Americans could afford to pay 1500 dollars for a 30 inch flatscreen if we shifted our social mentality from one of consuming and disposing of cheap goods often to buying expensive, quality goods, caring for them, and keeping them for a long time.

Our culture has become one of disposable goods and never ending spending to replace them, as well as a culture of buying things we don't need simply because we have been conditioned to constantly shop and buy things.

Consumerism is bad for the economy in the long run, bad for the environment, and bad for individual character.

It also has built up the economy of our enemy, which they will spend on arms and ammunition that they will one day use on us, perhaps.

[spacecowboy342]

Welcome to forcing Americans to pay 1500 dollars for a 30 inch flatscreen.

IOW, welcome to losing the next election.

Harte

As long as everybody eats, has a warm bed, and access to medical care the price of a flat screen doesn't really matter to me. But like you say anyone advocating this would lose the next election. Nobody cares about anything that can't be expressed in a two minute sound bite and free trade and strong on defense and our troubles are due to freeloaders are just to good for that. Just irks me that I keep hearing about how our problems would be solved if we cut taxes and regulations for our "job creators" yet we can't cut defense because it would hurt jobs. Why is it up to the taxpayers to support corporate greed while they don't pay taxes? Why is welfare for the poor bad while welfare for the rich is good?

[spacecowboy342]

Americans could afford to pay 1500 dollars for a 30 inch flatscreen if we shifted our social mentality from one of consuming and disposing of cheap goods often to buying expensive, quality goods, caring for them, and keeping them for a long time.

Our culture has become one of disposable goods and never ending spending to replace them, as well as a culture of buying things we don't need simply because we have been conditioned to constantly shop and buy things.

Consumerism is bad for the economy in the long run, bad for the environment, and bad for individual character.

It also has built up the economy of our enemy, which they will spend on arms and ammunition that they will one day use on us, perhaps.

Consumerism is the basis for capitalism. Worldwide capitalism is a ponzi scheme that can't be sustained. Growth potential is not unlimited. The world's resources are finite and by 2050 it is estimated there will be 9 billion people on the planet. Something has to give soon.

[Yamato]

Yet every budget proposal increases military spending. I would suggest medicare/medicaide is necessary while increased military spending is not. We could afford to help people were we not in an arms race with ourselves

http://www.washingto...in-four-charts/

http://nation.time.c...rth-1000-words/

Not every budget increases military spending, every war does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/Military-spending-sequester.jpg