jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (21 posts)

Republicans aren't upholding the constitution!

  1. bgamall profile image86
    bgamallposted 5 years ago

    The Republicans are sworn to uphold the constitution. The constitution requires, under the 14th Amendment, that the debts of the United States are guaranteed.

    The Republicans appropriated the money in the budget. They voted for the debt. But now, they want default. That should be seen as unconstitutional and a violation of their office vows.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If it's as you say, then I agree.  Just one thing----let the Dems go first; they've broken so many vows, shredded and/or manipulated the laws of this land so much it ain't even funny.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But in this case, the failure to protect the credit rating of the United States is a tax. So don't tell me the hypocritical Republicans aren't for taxes. Oh, as long as the rich don't have to pay as much because they don't need credit? But don't they need a lot of credit for business?

        Maybe they really are just stupid, Brenda.

        They have a duty after all the disputes to vote for a legitimate compromise.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Explain how that is a tax please,

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You pay more for interest. Like high fuel prices, it acts as a tax but the government and you get no benefit from it! Just the cartels, the oil and banking cartels, make more money.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Actually, that's not entirely accurate. There's one Republican upholding the Constitution, while not a single Democrat is trying to uphold it.

      So, actually, your statement is more false than true.

      (Psssst, Actually sit down, read the 10th Amendment, and then read Article 1 sections 8-10. If you love the Constitution, vote Ron Paul 2012 - he can actually quote the damned thing).

      1. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really Evan? Are you telling me Ron doesn't carry cash? Well, if he does...then he is out too.

        1. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Joe Walsh, a prominent Tea Party idiot is way behind on his child support payments. What a creep.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And Obama started a war without getting a declaration; he has yet to stop any of the wars he promised he would; he re-signed the Patriot Act; Gitmo is still open....

            What's this about some guy's child support?

            (PS - I'm glad that, in a thread dedicated to discussing Ron Paul, you throw in the name of some guy completely unrelated to the discussion in order to sully Paul's image. ... you REALLY need to stop writing about Paul in the Business Insider. Paul should be a Democrat? Are you nuts?).

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I bet he owns more gold than the rest of the Congressmen.

          Oh, and BTW, your argument is flawed - he holds cash because it's illegal to use other things as legal tender.

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image84
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Congress must make good on debt already incurred but not future debt and/or spending. At the present time tax revenues are able to pay current debt, therefore republicans would not be in violation of the Constitution by refusing to raise to debt ceiling.

  2. Jed Fisher profile image87
    Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    14th ammendment is good stuff. If I can make the case that the Banksters were out to destroy America, then debt incurred "in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States...all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You have a point there Jed.

  3. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    Last I heard, it's Harry Reid's democrats who've vowed to not compromise.
    But yeah most of them from both Parties are only thinking about themselves, it seems.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You cannot have a balanced budget Amendment because in times of severe recession the government has to spend. It buys time for recovery, although main street has been hurt so much by the predatory bankers that he can't recover. Supply side economics does not work in a credit crisis. You need to get money into the hands of the people and not the speculators.

  4. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Your argument is flawed -- Sure, the 14th amendment requires the debts to be fulfilled. But every single thing that is putting "us" in debt is unconstitutional.

    SS, Medicaid, Standing Armies around the world, 5 undeclared wars... yada yada yada.

    Ron Paul 2012.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, debt is not unconstitutional. Not standing behind it is.

      Hey Evan did you ever see this chart about the private banks taking over from Fannie and Freddie? Please look at this because you can't understand the housing bubble without it. Look at the time line:


      When you commented at my BI article you misspoke Evan. Yes, low interest rates were crucial to the housing bubble, but lack of regulation of the shadow bank/hedge fund private MBS as this chart shows, was crucial to pumping the bubble on purpose.

      Guess who was the policeman who didn't police when he was president of the NY Fed? Tim Geithner.

      Guess who was the investment banker who led the charge spreading these toxic mispriced private MBS's all over the world? Henry Paulson.

      These were the CDO's that went rotten.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Debt is not unconstitutional.

        But our current welfare is. Our current warfare is. The bailouts were. The Drug war is. The lack of a gold standard is. The central bank is.....

        ... do you want me to keep going? Or are you starting to realize that my sentence was: "But every single thing that is putting 'us' in debt is unconstitutional"

        PS: before you use the "general welfare" argument, I would like to summon the ghost of James Madison to make fun of you:

        *Evan cackles maniacally as he casts a necromantic spell to resurrect the ghost of James Madison*

        "It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. .... But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? "

        *Evan releases James Madison from his icy necromantic grip*

        Yes, that's right. James Madison just made fun of every liberal's reading skills.

        (In case you doubt that I have necromantic skills, I'll admit that all I REALLY did was read The Federalist #41)

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In your article with that chart, you wrote:

        "But the libertarian/Murray Rothbard/Ron Paul/Paul Ryan con is that in the name of freedom and restoration that comes from their massive cuts private banks, banks will be able to lend recklessly."

        Which is completely wrong.

        1) It's not a con.
        2) The Ron Paul / Murray Rothbard / Mises plan requires a gold standard.
        3) Under a gold standard:
        3a) The banks would be under a horrendous constraint to loan money out.
        3b) we'd have deflation instead of inflation. Deflation would make debt highly undesirable, and would increase savings dramatically to help finance future loans.
        3c) The deflation would be minimal - from 1066 to the early 1600s, the silver standard only depreciated in value by one-third. This amounts to a deflation rate of 0.3.

        You then continue to say:

        "If the banks fail they fail. But they are free to give it a shot and hurt Americans under this upside down reasoning."

        This is a disgusting statement that makes me question your understanding of what "starting a business" means. Of course people are free to try to start a business - banking included. And if they fail, they lose lots of money and time.

        Following this weird argument to it's core, no one should be allowed to start a business ever. That's actually what you're arguing.

        And then you continue to say things as idiotic as:

        "And get this! Bachus of Alabama said it was government's role to serve the banks. Hear that Ron Paul? Your buddy, in your own party, says government's role is to serve the banks."

        If you FOR EVEN ONE SECOND believe that Ron Paul doesn't openly criticize his own party, then you just REALLY have done NO research on Paul WHATSOEVER.

        Also, the chart you display doesn't prove what you think it proves because it fails to reflect perverse incentives created under massive monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates.

        In Conclusion: You really need to stop trying to get your "view" scores on BI higher by writing anti- Ron Paul pieces. You don't understand his message.

        I'll ask you to read the following books again:
        "Freedom Under Siege" (Ron Paul)
        "End the Fed"
        "Liberty Defined"
        "Rollback" (Thomas E. Woods Jr.)
        "Economics in One Lesson" (Henry Hazlitt)

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Also, the collapse was only foreseen by one school of economics: The Austrian School

        In this video, a news caster quotes a 2003 speech by Ron Paul at the 5:13 mark.


        If you notice, he pretty much predicted exactly what happened 5 years before it did.

  5. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago