Do you think Obama actually believes in the merit of the Constitution or do you think that he thinks that the chains i places on the Federal government are a bad thing?
I for one think he would love to see a purely national government with absolutely no limitations on what it can do to "help" people.
What help are you talking about exactly? He is increasing jobs in the private sector, REP/Cons should be happy about this but they are not.
They have diminished public (government) jobs by an inglorious amount, the REPs/COns should be happy about this but they are not.
He is giving tax breaks to small business as an incentive to hire people because it cost too much to hire people, so he is giving them a break and giving everyone but the top 5% a break.
Rep/cons should be happy about this but they are not, why?
They are getting everything they want and are still not please for one reason and one reason only, because it is Obama and they just don't like him to not like him even though in the next three months or so, YOU and ME and most of America is going to get a break.
But the top 5% who got the break over the last 15 years, will not be getting those breaks that everyone else for the last 15 years had to pay for.
If you really think Obama is the bad guy, you better deny those tax breaks for the middle class and small business owners to hire more people because that is essentially what I hear you saying.
You don't want people to be able to get health care.
You don't want the middle class to get a break.
You don't want small businesses or private sector jobs to hire people.
He also said he is going to enforce the trade laws and making fair pay for workers here. You don't like that either?
He is helping manufacturing companies grow and he is trying to create more jobs in the Clean Energy bill so that things can be "Made in America." But somehow you don't like that either?
He is trying to help America not destroy but a certain number of people are doing everything they can to lie to you and take away the things that are going to help.
All these things will help 95% of America start recovering but you cannot see it because you are too busy believing that he is trying to take over the world.
People can chose who they work for and if they take a Union or Federally funded job, that is their choice. The government cannot force anyone to take those jobs but they can make those jobs possible and if you deny the opportunity to take them and find yourself jobless because you somehow fear the government (that is trying to help you) then it is your fault.
If you say you cannot find a job because you do not want to take money from an institution that is governed by the people that work to maintain civil rights and allow for people to prosper, then you have no one to blame but yourself.
So you can also chose to do the right thing by helping people get jobs. Whenever I hear someone more concerned over the rich not getting a break.
The republican party wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts which goes to the rich. They argued that tax cuts help the economy. Fine then you should see some remarkable progress with 95% instead of 5% but now they don't like that, why?
Another ploy to blame the Democratic party and President Obama? At this point, it doesn't matter what happens because it is already in so many peoples heads that the dems are evil and Obama is evil and when good things happen, it is a magical parlor trick because Obama is evil.
It is really stupid to believe those things and hurt yourselves and neighbors in the process or didn't you get the memo? "We could turn the other cheek but... I would rather stare into the eyes of my dead enemy." -republican Christian right wing FOX supporter- figure it out.
They really aren't what you think and if you believe that those so called Conservatives/Christians are doing you any favors, you are wrong. They might know what is good but they certainly aren't willing to do it.
What I've said when he was popular and what I'm saying when he was not, is that I don't believe the mechanisms he is trying to put into place will do any of those things.
And I also don't believe he honestly thinks it will either. But it will give him more control of your money.
No governmental body, run by Republicans or Democrats can do those things well, and when "they" (whether "they" are corrupt Chicago Mobsters or corrupt Oil Tycoons ... equal time here for Obama and Bush evilness ... ) tell you that "they" will help do those things if you only give them more of your tax money... "they" are lying... on purpose... and betraying everyone who believes in them and really wants to help.
What didn't you get BDaz, he is giving 95% of America a tax break and tax breaks to small businesses to hire people. He didn't ask for more taxes. The only thing happening is the Bush tax cuts are expiring it effects the richest of the rich.
"they" will help do those things if you only give them more of your tax money... "they" are lying... on purpose... and betraying everyone who believes in them and really wants to help."
Haven't you heard? This is the exactly what the "christian republican conservatives" are asking their constituents to do.
Wake up BDaz, just because they believe the same bible as you do doesn't mean they are really good. Snap out of it!
Sandy, my mom was an elected official for over 12 years. My brother was once a security escort for a member of the Regan administration. His best friend's brother is currently a secret service agent in the white house.
About a month ago, I had lunch with a classmate of Robert Gibbs. My sister in-law went to law school with one of the Kennedy's.
I know people on both sides of the aisle personally. I know who they are. I know what they do. I'm not getting my information from news or press releases or briefings. I'm talking face to face with people.
These are not theoretical concepts to me. These are people I look in the eye and I *know*. There's a reason my family is getting out of politics. There is no longer a distinction on either side.
He is not giving a tax break. He is *saying* he's giving a tax break. He is not giving health care. He is *saying* he's giving health care.
I can't tell you "wake up" because your only source of information is "news" and you have no way of knowing what news is true and what news is not.
I'm not asleep, and I'm not believing that Republicans will do a good job without making the situation worse somewhere else.
All government is corrupt at some level. All politicians lie at some level. My mom was a 12 year incumbent. When she refused to go along with something she knew was wrong, she was suddenly "unelectable" in the primary. The compromise she was asked to make "seemed" small at first. But it was not.
A guy who used to work for me ran for congress on the democratic ticket. He and I had reasonable disagreements but he was an honest man who told the truth and was smart enough to do a good job. There were things I wouldn't have liked that he would have supported. But he was an honorable man, the disagreements would have been civil I would have been proud to say I knew him. He got creamed in the election because he refused to play dirty.
Politics have always been dirty business. But it used to be that in small elections, a few honest people could make a difference. That's no longer true. Honorable democrats and honorable republicans cannot get elected in most districts any more.
The supposed differences between republicans and democrats are superficial at best when it comes to reality.
My daughter was finally able to get health care. You want me to give that up? However it works out, for whatever reason my kid was denied several time over the last three years for health care.
Finally just last month she was accepted. Now you are trying to tell me he is not doing what he said he was going to do?
As for the taxes, lets see what happens in November. He said in about three months the middle class will start to see tax breaks and FYI.
The school I got a job at had a tone of jobs come up because Obama passed legislation that has allowed them to keep teachers on the the funding to hire employees to help with the over grown classroom sizes.
If it wasn't for Obama I would still be jobless. I am grateful and because I went out looking and trying for the things he had promised I know only for myself that it is out there.
So you can say he isn't doing those things but I will tell you that he is.
OK, I'm glad your daughter has health care. I truly am.
He's accomplished a lot despite GOP opposition at every turn.
Yep, those unemployment numbers today really reflected that, gotta love the big drop in educational employment -- were they living and teaching or coaching in the wrong State?
The numbers would be much worse but for the stimulus program and Federal Reserve expansionary policies. I just refinanced my home mortgage for 4% thanks to the FED.
Since you shop for organic food at a cool market, why exactly would you need to take advantage of the FED? Not to mention the comment is laughable, you could refinance with or without the crap happening in Congress, refinancing is not a new concept in an environment of low interest rates.
And not too many Americans want to hear anymore about the silky web of jobs saved that no one can quantify, not even Romer.
you got a cheaper house, and the economy got one more nail in its coffin.
He has accomplished a lot, despite being pursued by the religiously insane with the greatest pack of lies ever spoken about a graduate of Harvard.
You mean like the big old longtime Democrat, Rangel? Who just told his constiutents God told him not to cop a plea, that it was an 'Anglo Saxon' (as in white) thing?
No, although that is a beauty! I do not need to see a "perfect party" in the Democrats.
I see a helluva lot of good things happening between our governments and other countries who are no longer being threatened to tow the American line or face sanctions, trade bans or other instruments of destruction for starters!
An educated articulate president who understands the world around him is a real novelty.
He even knows where my country is!
My, My what a novelty! I just can't imagine why Michael Moore is not the Czar of American Propaganda Films! What an excellent post for him, how fitting that he should join the line up of Czarist blue boobs that are making the world just adore America, finally see an 'in' to collapsing America, and geez finally find them on the map, what a gift from this administration. Awesome.
Ummmmm ... explain to me again again how a party with a minority in both houses and only one swing vote necessary to break a filibuster can mount such an effective opposition as the one you describe.
I would think a leader of Obama's vast experience should have no trouble at all with an opposition party in the minority ...
Um ... are you are in favor of opposition parties ... uh ... comrade?
The top 5% who got a break? Are you kidding me? Look at their marginal tax rate they pay for everything.
What tax cuts do you speak of for small business? There is absolutely not a single tax cut under this administration that is favorable enough to risk starting a new small business, and the stimulus bill was a COMPLETE joke.
That entire stimulus package should have never passed, and if it was passed it should have actually gave tax cuts to the small businesses and middle class that you speak of. Not building multi million dollar roads to protect a population of 6 squirrels and various other ridiculous projects.
Who is telling you this garbage? You have no idea what you are doing. If you oppose Obama, those things you just said you want will go out with him.
The rich don't pay for everything.
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
The bottom 47% of this country don't pay for anything.
Getting a break on income taxes does not equate to "not paying anything." This has been discussed ad nauseum on the forums.
Yes, 47 percent owe no taxes, but not whole story
"So why are those radio and television talk show hosts spending so much time arguing that today’s wealthy are unfairly burdened? Well, it’s hard not to notice that the talk show hosts themselves tend to be among the very wealthy.
No doubt, like the rest of us, they don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes. They are happy with the tax cuts they have received lately. They would prefer if other people had to pick up the bill for Medicare, Social Security and the military — people like, say, firefighters, preschool teachers, computer support specialists, farmers, members of the clergy, mail carriers, secretaries and truck drivers."
Not at all true. Everybody who works pays Social Security Tax, state sales and income tax, gasoline tax, etc. These people pay a much higher percentage of their income than people who earn much more money. People who earn up to $100,000 pay 7% FICA tax and people who make $1 million or $10 million pay .7% or .07%.
(You should read up a bit on taxation in the United States.)
Here's a chart that shows how taxes in the U.S. compare with other countries:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing … tional.cfm
Okay what he should have said is 47% pay NO income taxes.
Not sure that's accurate either. Maybe it is. I don't have time to check every wild claim by the likes of framboise.
Here's an informed comment from a very good economist on the tax situation--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/busin … amp;st=cse
Well it's one man's opinion and I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to make the opposite case. My feeling is the stimulus has been ineffective because it's been used to advance the political power of the party in power instead of being directed at repairing an economy in trouble. Indeed there is still over 400 billion in unspent TARP money and congress was called back into session to approve a 26 billion dollar bailout of public service union jobs! No surprise there! I believe they also threw in a tax cut for small business.
So your argument is for government to spend more, well where will they get this money? They will print it and borrow it and where will the wealth come to back those promissory notes? The rich? Corporations? Well you can only tax the rich so much, I guess you'd like to see them pay 95% of everything they earn.
Sooner or later though the government will have to pull the excess dollars out of the economy, and they will have to do it in a way that prevents hyper inflation. You of course trust government to do this right? Well I am not as trusting as you especially in light of government's inability to avoid the mortgage crisis, spend the stimulus properly or even execute cash for clunkers in a cost efficient manner.
Ralph I agree with your psition on FICA taxes. There should be no limitation on taxation with FICA. Social Security and Medicare must be means tested or the US will go bottom up.
Really? Well then should there also be no limit on the benefit? Remember our benefit is a function of what we pay in. Social security is supposed to be an insurance program used for our retirement, not a wealth redistribution program. Removing the cap on what you pay means you must increase the benefit.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Social Security as wealth redistribution?
Anyone who thinks Social Security is an Insurance plan should take a history class. Link to the original SCOTUS decision.
That isn't a link to the decision. It is a link to a blog by someone that purports to give historical context on the circumstances under which the Supreme Court held that Social Security was constitutional.
Perhaps you should read it, it would perhaps clarify that Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT SOCIAL PROGRAMS, are not welfare, were paid for, paid in to, established by, the elderly in America who are being well f'd by this administration's changes.
"What help are you talking about exactly? He is increasing jobs in the private sector, REP/Cons should be happy about this but they are not."
If it were true we would be.
Next month they will amend the statements made this month to say oops, well we made a mistake again.
No, you see. You already have what you want to say planned out and no matter what happens, you will use the same statement you have already reflected as being true.
You can at any time check the labor and statistics stats on how many private sector jobs were added last month and how many public sector jobs were lost.
Whether people take them or not is not a government forced issue unless people are not taking those jobs just to be disagreeable because the government doesn't make anyone do anything.
That is a lie that the CONs are putting out there to make people fear the government. Those jobs are out there, now people have to get off their butts and go get them but wait...
They fear anything the government does because? Because the overall unemployment data shows a unemployment went up because there were more government job losses then there were private job gains.
It is exactly what the cons wanted but now they feel they need to dilute everything just to scare people and make Obama look bad.
If they can give back those public (government) jobs then you would have seen an overall decline of unemployment but you don't care about that stuff or the regular people who had government jobs. You know, jobs like fire fighters and police officers and teachers etc...
You can cry about how bad immigration in Az. because they don't have the law enforcement necessary to carry out their jobs because the republicans don't like federally funded jobs because they fear big government, so instead they decided it would just be better to do whatever they want, they would just up and decide that the Constitution doesn't mean squat and as a state they can do whatever they want.
Ohhh, but the boogy man, that bad evil man Obama didn't like that and pleaded, there is a better way. Let's have better and more law enforcement jobs.
But the Republicans cried, that is tyranny! How dare Obama offer federally funded jobs like police men and fire fighters to the state to help with immigration, he is an evil man.
"he is an evil man."
Nah, he's just really stupid.
BTW, thats all I read of the novel you posted.
Yes I know Jim, you have made yourself clear several times. You don't like to read. I know, but if you must keep saying it please do. I would love to read about it.
What? And participate in a dummied down institution? Nooooooooo!
Ive learned my lesson, there is no sense in talking to certain people on here or reading what they write.
I am not a fan of propaganda and don't want to be subjected to it.
Nope, I don't.
and you aren't? so you believe that the rhetoric you spew isn't a product of propaganda? just out of curiosity where do you get your factual unbiased information that you are hiding from the rest of us? all of us mindless drones who are incapable of thinking for ourselves are just dying to know.
This is what Obama thinks of the Constitution, in his own words
He thinks the Constitution was an early sailing ship!
Barack Obama is a lawyer. The only thing they believe in is manipulating the intent of legislation to serve their own interests. I can assure you, the majority of Americans are not interested in a "national" government and are regretting their decision to put someone like Obama in the position to push America in that direction.
I don’t know if your question about the President was ever answered. I read a long time and didn’t see anyone answer your question. The question sparked debate and interest, in that sense it was a very good question. As I grow as a Hubber I will strive to be debatable and interesting. Sandra Rinch didn’t answer your question directly but, indirectly she did a very good job, she went to the head of the class.
I was interested in your question before I saw it posted. I have been seeing and hearing a lot of politicians and everyday people suddenly embracing the Constitution lately. It seem like they believe in the Constitution, all of them. I believe that in order to believe in something , someone must have seen it, touched it, or have faith that it exist. I believe the President has seen it, touched it, and read, it over and over. He even taught it at Harvard University. In my opinion some politicians and everyday people have faith. The President I believe truly believe in the Constitution.
No, I don't think he does. He states that he studied law, but he also campaigned saying that he wants to fundamentally change the law. He is on record saying that the changes previously made to the Constitution didn't go far enough in redistributing wealth.
He doesn't talk about equal opportunity under the law, he wants those who prosper to pay for those who don't. While the generosity of Americans include social programs for those needing a help up, his solutions appear to be more of hand out.
"he wants those who prosper to pay for those who don't."
Guess who proposed this radical redistribution of wealth.
The poor man, who uses nothing but what
is made in his own farm or family, or within
his own country, pays not a farthing of tax...
Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the
public debt, and its surplus applied to canals,
roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his
government supported, his children educated,
and the face of his country made a paradise
by the contributions of the rich alone, without
his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings. * —
He lives in Washington...he's bound to have seen it.
I agree 100% this man is a complete joke as an American president.
Why do people still think socialist policies work? Hasn't history proven which side is right?
Thank God our Founding Fathers put in a system to help block this type of redistributive thought.
Joni, it is undisputed that he studied law...not just his "statement." He went to Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review...about the highest honor you can have from that institution. There is room for disagreement over his interpretation of either the constitution or the law. But he has more than a passing familiarity with both. Most of the previous posts are making points that have nothing to do with the constitution. They are expressing disagreement with Obama's economic policies.
Sylvie I had noticed the same thing.
Not much room for facts in this sort of post is there?
Just ignorant Obama bashing for the most part.
I wonder how many of his detractors went past primary school?
Asking the question about the President's view of the constitution answers a lot of other questions for me.
Obama knows Constitutional law better than most any of his predecessors. There is absolutely no reason to doubt his belief in the Constitution. His views are quite moderate.
Yes, next to Karl Marx I'm sure his views are a little more moderate.
How do you know this? His school transcripts are all top secret. You say he knows Constitutional Law only because someone told you he did.
Where is the proof of his prowess? I think he is a dullard in Reality. Uh Uh Uhm
You can dislike his policies but anyone that believes Obama is a dullard has a strange definition of the term. Not everyone you disagree with is stupid. Harvard law school is (arguably if you are from Yale, Stanford or Berkeley), the finest law school in the country. The Harvard Law Review is the top law review in the country and also publishes the Bluebook, which creates standards governing legal citation around the country. Just being on the Law Review is incredibly prestigious and is open to only to students with top grades at the end of their first year (a few slots are generally also open to winners of a writing competition). Many of the top jurists in the country, including a number of Supreme Court justices, served on the Harvard Law Review, including Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg, Roberts, and Kagan. But Obama did not just serve on it, he was its President. Most Harvard grads can write their own ticket without approaching Obama's credentials. But with his credentials he could have written his own ticket to any of the top law firms in the country or taken a coveted spot as a judicial clerk to one of the justices of the Supreme Court. Now going to a top school, studying constitutional law (every law student must), getting grades good enough to be in law review, and passing the bar exam are not sufficient to make you a scholar of constitutional law. But his legal education and pedigree are unassailable and he certainly studied con law in an academic setting as well as anyone. And it goes beyond that, Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago for over a decade. The University of Chicago is another top law school. I am not suggesting that you need to accept the executive branch's interpretation of the constitution just because the president is a former constitutional law professor. But care enough about your own credibility not to call him a dullard.
Well writtent. I note from your profile you are a lawyer which is one reason you know which are the best law schools.
I fault you on one detail. You expct that the conservatives care about their credibility. A lynch mob thinks that numbers establish credibility - and a mob mentality is what you are trying to reason with.
Scholar of constitutional law? Hahh He doesn't even know how many State's comprise the Union.
He was the head of The Harvard Law Review? Can you find me ONE single piece he wrote for the Harvard Law Review?
You could put me as head of MIT Physics Department the title does not equate to intelligence.
Projection (or projection bias) - The unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those attributes or feelings. The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.
No, President Obama is not a dullard, and I'm pretty sure you would never be selected to head the MIT Physics Department.
Nice post. I rather think that anyone affiliated with MIT in any way would look down on all of us for the time spent discussing this issue.
I acquiesce, Obama is just as smart as George Bush (Yale Graduate).
What were Obama's grades?
Top secret squirrel national security secret?
Well, considering he was president of the Harvard Law Review... He graduated Magna Cum Laude actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba … Law_School
Wow I thought you were going to show me a transcript of his grades? Huh?
You have absolutely no interest in the truth. I have spent more time than you deserve creating posts you do not read or apparently cannot comprehend. Do you know what Magna Cum Laude means? He graduated in the top 10% of his class. You cannot lie about this designation because it is a matter of public record by the law school. How would a release of his academic transcript help remove you from the delusional belief that Obama must be stupid because he disagrees with you? It is a matter of public record that he graduated in the top 10%...i.e., 90% of his class in Harvard did more poorly than he did. Are you going to pore over his transcripts and say...ah hah, he got an A in Contracts but only a B+ in Trusts and Estates? Given how little time you take even reading the posts you respond to, much less supporting your posts with anything, I rather doubt that you have it in you to perform that kind of diligence.
Harvard law review has maybe 80-90 editors out of a thousand students. These editors were chosen based on students who, in their first year, earned the highest grades (and a few who distinguished themselves as writers).
Your comparison of Obama's academic credentials (and 12 years of teaching constitutional law) with G.W. Bush, who barely graduated as an undergraduate from Yale, makes no sense. Based on the acuity you have demonstrated on this forum, it is unclear that you know the difference between a juris doctorate degree and an undergraduate degree. And no one was talking about Bush's academics before you brought it up.
What is wrong with you? You are not adding anything meaningful to an argument that you conclusively lost. Why don't you focus on explaining, with particularity, why you disagree with Obama's policies, etc. Do you have any views or opinions you would like to share?
me not comprehend yes, what else woold u xpect from a government indoctrinated edumycation.
I admit my ignorance and stupidity. If I was alil more literate maybe I could ghet through yur essays.
You do not need to enliten moi I am beyond repair.
tanks for the try thow
Honestly, just read my post again. He taught constitutional law at the University of Columbia for 12 years. He was a student of the most prestigious law school in the nation. He was president of the most prestigious law review in the nation. Just being on the law review staff is very competitive and prestigious. A law review is the editorial board...they select,edit and publish the finest legal writing submitted to them from outside scholars and practitioners around the nation. Law review editors sometimes try to publish their own work in the law review (these are known as "comments" or "notes") but most of the space is devoted to outside submissions. I am trying to give you responses full of information because I thought you may have been unfamiliar with the publicly available information. In response, I'm getting posts full of conjecture and bile. You care enough about this issue to voice rabid opinions on it, but not enough to do any research or even to read carefully the information I provide you. Our presidents are not required to be lawyers or scholars in constitutional law. They have people to advise them and in any event the president is not the final arbiter of what is constitutional. But you asked about Obama's background and I gave it to you. I did not tell you to accept Obama's interpretation of the Constitution on anything. I just pointed out that your statement that Obama was a dullard and did not have any education in constitutional law was incorrect.
"He went to Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review...about the highest honor you can have from that institution."
And yet he has only one, unsigned article listed in the highly esteemed harvard law review.
Reading this we can all agree that he has definite opinions on the costitution and the law. We can also infer that he has a self proffessed ability to see the future.
You're kidding me right? The guy thinks our Constitution is some outdated piece of history and doesn't reflect our modern era. He thinks The Constitution doesn't even work well, it's flawed because it doesn't say what the government must do for you?!?!
And to think that this guy actually studied law and doesn't get why the Founders wrote The Constitution that way. Obviously a Harvard law degree is not what it used to be.
Yet you take the opinion of undergrads. What degree do you have? Are you a law professor? Did you graduate highschool. Do you regularly attend church or have you gone to Catholic school. Do you know how many sentences are in the Preamble, do you know what the Preamble is?
Do you make over 250,000 a year? What have the rich done for you lately? What exactly did they pay for?
I could say the same about you. What qualifies you to post about Obama? Do you have a PhD in Obama?!
Oh but you want qualifications from me that you don't present about yourself?
FK, she knows whats best for you.
Hand over your bank account info, SS number, date of birth to her and she will makes sure it gets to the right place.
My qualifications are
I stayed at a Holiday inn last night, just slightly more valuable than a Harvard law degree I'm sure.
Well crikey, she made me scroll through all that stuff, I figured that was enough for me to post!
She does put up some looooooooong posts.
All those word and it never says anything new.
A simple "I worship Obama" would suffice.
I know you don't like to read. Might be why you don't understand much more then the "Obama is evil" plea from the Republican party.
Cute with the worship Obama bit. Another fact you have wrong. You see, unlike yourself. I actually do care about people. Must be the devil in me though. IDK, I could tell you about it but reading is a dummied down institution for the intelligent people who have been misinformed by reading the things people write.
this is exactly the kind of thinking that is hurting America. It does not matter what "the rich" have done for you. It is not your place to try to get your hands on someone else's money. Stop thinking collectively, start thinking individually and look at people as individuals and not groups. Then you will see why the other half of people find your ideas to be absolutely ridiculous when applied to reality.
I think whatever OBAMA does is subject to criticism by some sector as they have already preconceived notions about him. I think he is trying his best to give what is due to the majority of people here -- the middle class.
What exactly is due? Whose money does the government spend? I think these are the questions that have to be asked.
Governments should be instituted only to protect people from one another and foreign threats. Not to get there misinformed hands all over the market ruining the natural benefits of free market capitalism.
Raising the unemployment rate and making sure that health care are affordable -- that is what all the people deserve not only the middle class. Microeconomics or household econ is dependent on the macro to some extent.
The first sentence in the second par -- is just few of the roles of the government. Free market capitalism is a fluke, it is an ideal situation. Economy is not just a matter matter of supply and demand, investment and interest rates are other functions of economy.
Unfortunately he disregards the Constitution when he is trying to "help" the middle class. What exactly has he done for the middle class?
In regards to facts about exactly what Obama has done that is unconstitutional, lobbying for and signing a bill that forces Americans to buy a product definitely steps outside of the commerce clause wouldn't you say?
But I know you libs wouldn't let a silly thing like the Constitution get in the way of "progress".
I oppose his policies precisely because:
I want people to be able to get health care.
I want the middle class to get a break.
I want small businesses or private sector jobs to hire people.
You have absolutely no idea how wealth is created or circulated in an economy. It certainly doesn't come from central planning by the government about how to redistribute it. It comes from the market.
It will be a glorious day when the people in the country make a stand and halt this socialistic progress before it grinds our economic future to a halt and starts punishing success to reward failure even more than it already does.
And just to be crystal clear, I hate Republicans only slightly less than Democrats.
I think Obama is doing his best too. Scary huh?
His view of what he wants the government to be able to do and what the Constitution states the government is allowed to do are certainly at odds.
When we have Congressmen, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution stating that they don't care too much for the Constitution, then we have a problem. It isn't just the president or Congress, it isn't just donkeys or elephants either....it is the whole bunch of them in Washington.
What exactly do you think Obama wants and what exactly do you want?
This health care bill forces the American citizens to buy health insurance. While this sounds a great idea, (and I encourage everyone to have insurance) what happens when the government decides to force you to buy something else that maybe you don't want or need or even can't afford?
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to force its citizens to purchase anything. This is a power grab. If the government can claim this over one product then they can and will over others.
Did you get a letter from the government saying you must buy health insurance?
This is a silly response.
Are you not aware that this bill requires everyone to buy health insurance? Did you not hear about this beyond the sound bites? What did you think the great controversy was?
If you fail to purchase insurance, the IRS can & will fine you. If you don't pay, according to Pelosi, jail time is an option.
There is no controversy because it is not true. Did you have to purchase health insurance the last time you filed taxes? No you didn't.
I also know that people were able to keep their insurance they already had. That was a so called controversy too but I know that that did not happen. They said, if you allow Obama's health care to pass then people would have to give up their insurance and purchase government insurance.
Did you get a letter from the Federal government telling you that you must purchase their plan? No you didn't.
I never stated that you must purchase THEIR plan. I said the that they require you to purchase or have health insurance.
It's in the bill.
All Americans must have health insurance. Not necessarily purchased from the government but the government now requires you to have insurance.
To answer the original question, my answer is no and since there was no question of why, I will not answer.
I will say this, I owned and operated a sorta small size business for 25 years, closed it when my parents passed on, did not work for 2 years, went back into the work force, had a small stroke, left me unable to be on a job for any length of time, therefore, living on what I had saved, it depleted, I opened another small business, it would pay the bills, and that is about it, but I'm thankfrul for that....But to comment on this post, IF I as a business owner had to pay for health insurance, I would have to close the doors. I, as a single mom of a 16 year old, at home, with me, can not receive any of the state health care that is in our state. (Gotta save it for all the OTHER people who qualify. As for my stroke, I can't afford any more bills, so therefore I have not had any medical treatment. PLEASE do not misunderstand me, I am NOT asking for any pity, but, folks, my case is a mild one.Health care. Great thing. IF IF IF IF it went to those that need it.
While I ran my first business, I was contacted by several insurance companies wanting me to enroll in their "system". (some may think I am crazy for not doing so, but hey, I sleep well.) But when I asked them about payment, I was told they paid x amount of dollars. O.k. my problem was, they would have paid me 3 times the amount of what I charged a regular individual. and 2 times the amount I charged a business customer. .....DUH that is why our premiums are so high.
Politics, in my opinion, are just the end result of crooked. It starts with the big guys wanting control of the market, and ends up with WHERE?
I may be wrong, but, thats my opinion.
You do not have to agree.
I think Obama wants to help people, i truly do. I also think he believes that it is up to him to take from some people to give to others who he perceives to need it more. It does not bother him, or you, that he has absolutely no right to the wealth created by these people and no authority from our system of government to take and redistribute these goods.
He does not believe in ever individuals ability to achieve, I on the other hand do. I don't think you help people permanently by giving them fish... in fact you damage them.
I am sorry if you get the idea that I believe in taking from one to give to another. I do not. It is stealing any way you look at it.
The working people, even we self employed, pay taxes into the system.
Self employed people have no unemployment benefits. Illegals, do they?
I am 47, do you think by the time I reach the (current) ripe ole age of retirement that I will receive any retirement benefits? My opinion is NO. This, to me, is also stealing.
But wait, the question is in regard to the Constitution, not morales.
The average person can achieve much more than they do, but with the system the way it is, there are many individuals receiving gov benefits such as welfare food stamps and so forth when they are quiet able to work.
Do you think there are any people getting benefits that are using unprescribed drugs?
Have you ever applied for a job? Most jobs today require a drug test. In my opinion, people who receive gov benefits should be subjected to the same criteria.
Maybe, I'm wrong. ????????????????????????
Obama wants us to forget about the constitootion. His goal is to transform our country into a submissive entity to a global government.
He is bought and paid for by international financiers.
Boy I bet he could use a vacation.
At least Michelle Antoinette could use another half a million dollar vacation. WTF I have a hard time buying food but I would much rather have my income taxed and handed over to Queen Michelle so she can enjoy her Caviar and Dom snacks.
I do not even like cake Queen oppressor!
I think a lot of people are confusing the difference between an act that they disagree with and an act that is that is unlawful or unconstitutional. The latter conclusion requires an understanding of the law and the Constitution. It is no surprise that this thread is devoid of any specific examples of how any of Obama's policies are unconstitutional. There is generalized bile and an inaccurate labeling of Obama as a socialist (apparently this demonizes him in some way). I'm not kidding, I cannot find any specific mention of how any of his acts are unconstitutional...just unsupported accusations.
You may disagree with the health care bill but that does not make it unlawful. There was a lot of hand-wringing over Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, i.e., and the socialist word was thrown around at that time too. Perhaps some of you believe these programs should not have been enacted, but they have benefited many Americans. More importantly, they did not cause the destruction of the world or a transformation of our country into something that would give Kim Il Jong a woody. How many of you, by the way, know that the basic framework for Obama's health care plan came from Richard Nixon? Indeed, there is much that Republicans today could have embraced about the health care plan. But instead they saw it as an opportunity to gain political capital by spreading misinformation and fanning fear.
It is not the health care bill in itself it is the imposition. It it the providing the government control of what we purchase.
It is the fact that the feds have no jurisdiction within the states.
It is the fact that his economic (stimulus) package was and is a complete failure. Notice the resignations.
It is because he did nothing but spread propaganda while the oil was spilling.
It is that he has brought a lawsuit against a state in favor of a foreign entity.
It is the fact that he took a position of nobility by leading the united nations security council (another foreign entity) without gaining the Congress' permission.
Not to mention the blatant campaign lies!
Transparency hah the only thing that is transparent is his unqualified failure to provide this country with the proper leadership. Instead of union he has caused division.
I am sure you will be glad to vote for him in 2012. Good Luck
Anyone thinking obama is creating jobs in the private sector needs to broaden their sources of information. 131,000 jobs lost in july alone. Ridiculous to say obama is creating jobs. Ridiculous to think he wants to grow the private sector at all. It is my opinion obama wants to crush capitalism under the weight of the poor and government spending. He has already spent more in a year and a half than Bush did in eight years. He has printed more money than all other presidents combined. He will try to make up for this by soaking the rich; which will kill even more jobs.
also a note to Sandra rinck. The only sector of employment growing is government jobs. Case in point is the 400,000 census workers hired to rework voting districts. Costing 14 and half billion dollars. Yeah that sounds like governmental downsizing. Just like the 17,000 new employees the IRS will hire to enforce health insurance. To say Obama is downsizing government is laughable.
Get the facts, you have it backwards. Yes, the census jobs did decrease the overall gov.jobs but it doesn't account for all of it and you have't taken into account how many private sector jobs were added.
Get the facts is all I am saying. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
ru---just a note to mention, the census jobs, are soon to be added back to the unemployment line as their jobs are coming to a close.
sandra r--perhaps you would like to tell us where the new jobs are that he created. The truth of the matter is the unemployment figure that is aired does not reflect the people who are self employed who by the way have no chance in receiving any unemployment benefits, nor does it reflect the private sector jobs such as hired individuals that have been terminated because of lack of work. You are correct, YOU can get the facts with a little reading.
Oh yeah, did I mention, even though I, as a self employed individual, that I pay taxes for the benefit, of apparently others to receive that I along with many other self employed individuals can not, are not entitled to, are turned away from receiving.
This is to me a form of redistributing the wealth, which is unjustly wrong.
When I was growing up, if I took something that belonged to someone else and claimed it as mine, I would have gotten into major trouble. Why, because it is stealing. Do you agree or disagree with stealing?
You can get the facts. It does require a little reading.
"It is the fact that the feds have no jurisdiction within the states."
That's not a fact.
"It is the fact that his economic (stimulus) package was and is a complete failure. "
That's not a fact. The stimulus package prevented a much deeper recession or even a depression. It hasn't worked better because of compromises forced in order to get a couple of GOP senators to vote for it. The stimulus package should have been bigger and would have been bigger if it hadn't been for the most negative GOP leadership in the country's history.
There's a graph somewhere of the jobs lost under Bush and the reversal (starting) under Obama. It's going to be a long haul getting unemployment numbers back to normal. It will NEVER happen if we return to the GOP policies that brought us this financial disaster.
''It will NEVER happen if we RETURN to the GOP policies that BROUGHT US this FINANCIAL disaster.''
What are those GOP policies that you refer to causing the financial disaster ?
''The Stimulus package should have been bigger and would have been bigger if it hadn't been for the most negative GOP leadership in the country's history''.The stimulus started at $787 billion and today it is $858 billion. The bill was passed without many of those who voted ’’AYE’’ didn’t even read what was in the bill. Only 60% of the stimulus money has been spent and unemployment is 9.5% going up to 10% according to Secretary Geiether. Today there are 14.5 million workers out of work. Unemployment benefits have been approved are for 99 months. Is this how Stimulus funding works?
The government with the Democrat majority controlled Congress passing the Finance Reform Bill and the signing by President Barak Obama, the government now controls 60% of the US economy. Here we are some 19 months later with a super majority Democrat control of Congress and President Obama, the country is still looking for a better economy and jobs. Another promise broken?
Let's not forget that Obama and a Democrat majority Congress controlled Congress the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. The recession started in Dec of 2007. Bush has long been gone for President Barak Obama to even mention OR criticizing Bush.
Stimulus? What was the reason for it? To help the economy? Well, since it is the people of the country that are hurting, let's look at something here.
Since the gov had decided to spend the money, what do you think the outcome would have been if: take the amount to be spent and divide it by the number of citizens in this country, and give them that total? I would even agree to the gov regulating how the individual could spend HALF or even 75% of the money. Such as to catch up on mortgage payments, help finance a vehicle, to pay for auto or health insurance,medicine/medical, etc. With the remainder, the individual would be free to use as necessary. Big dogs greed satisfied, and maybe even a few hungry stomachs fed, simple basic needs such as tissue, shampoo, etc. Maybe even a few savings accounts opened. Possibilities.
It would have made more sense and helped a lot more people.
Why is the administrations economic dept resigning? They did such a good job, maybe Greece has offered them a job.
Oh I have tried to restrain myself but what the heck
"That's what she said!
The Obama Healthcare plan IS unconstitutional because it violates the Federal governments restrictions by forcing American citizens to buy a private good. It is the "mandate" that had every one up in arms that actually respects and values the Constitution.
As you may know we live in a common law country where decisions such as these set precedents that give the federal govt. more power than they are constitutionally enumerated.
Just because you think something is a good idea, doesn't mean it won't lead to huge abuses of power down the line.
Look at the PATRIOT act for example, a HUGE govt power grab under George W. Bush that I am absolutely opposed to on constitutional grounds as well.
I'm going to keep this short and simple: Barry is going the way of Jimmy Carter; he will be voted out in 2012, after he creates one too many crises for the public to stomach.
Reality Bites, I appreciate the specificity of your post. What you have listed are either criticisms of Obama's policies and decisions, or your opinion that some of these policies failed. It is fair enough for you to believe this. You have not identified anything that is unconstitutional or unlawful...which is where this thread started. The one exception is your statement that "It is the fact that the feds have no jurisdiction within the states." This is completely wrong. This is not how federalism works. You could start with the plain text of the Constitution. Do you mean a more narrow point? If so, what is it? Thanks.
The feds have no jurisdiction within the states when it comes to anything not specifically enumerated to them within the constitution as per the 10th amendment. Trust me, your argument is an epic failure.
What argument is an epic failure? I was pointing out that the statement that "It is the fact that the feds have no jurisdiction within the states" is wrong. It is wrong. You are restating correctly what the 10th amendment states, but that is different from Reality Bites's original statement. I will point out that it is widely considered by legal scholars to be a truism that does not actually support states rights in any way. The 10th amendment does not modify the Necessary and Proper clause ("The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.") There was a debate at the time to make the 10th amendment state that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government would be retained by the states. But they ultimately chose not to fetter the federal government that way and instead allowed it to also have implied powers per the Necessary and Proper clause. States rights arguments based on the 10th amendment generally fail. As the Supreme Court noted over 60 years ago in U.S. v. Darby "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment..."
You are strecthing the necessary and proper clause way further than it was intended, you remove it from its context when it clearly states within the bounds of what constitution allows the Congress to do.
You do not have free reign to make any law you feel is necessary and proper, you have free reign to make any law that is necessary and proper to do what is specifically enumerated to the Congress in the Constitution.
It is the greatest governing document ever created by man when it is applied in its traditionalist, literal sense. You don't interpret things that are clearly written in plain English.
You are telling me what I have done but not how. I just repeated the necessary and proper clause. If you think I removed it from context, provide context. You seem to believe that the 10th amendment leaves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states. That is not correct. Not correct from a reading of the document or the history of the 10th amendment. Indeed, there were voices in favor writing the 10th amendment in a way that would have supported your argument, but those voices ultimately lost. The 10th amendment does not modify the necessary and proper clause and leaves the federal government with implied powers not explicitly granted to it. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the constitution this way, and I gave you one of the most often cited cases. You are relying on a truism that, under well-established precedent, cannot support any kind of states' right position or restriction on federal power.
Take a position of nobility! Violation of the constitution.
When he took the seat as the head of the un security council without the authorization of congress.
Guess what - In 2012 there will be an election - and the GOP doesn't have a candidate. All you are hearing from conservatives is that Obama will be voted out. That's not how it works. You don't have a candidate with better ideas. I see a lot af things I want done differently - and I see things that went wrong in this administration. But the GOP is without leadership - period.
funny Sandra, you sound like every other Obama fan. Whomever doesn't swallow his junk must be illiterate. Who are you to suggest people do not read. Your elitist position is misguided and mistakenly stilted. Basically because you are wrong. Makes me wonder if you really seek fact or simply justify your position with hubris. No wonder you believe what Obama is selling.
The census did not decrease government jobs it increased them. One cannot prove a positive with a negative. To say Obama's agenda is working because things haven't gone worse then they have is a false proof. The facts stand for themselves. We are loosing jobs and spending money that does not create them. Reality works best from the ground floor rather than the lofty perch you sit upon.
The truth does require a little reality.
to Doug. You are fired up about the GOP not having a candidate for 2012. You must realize announcing intentions this early would be political suicide right? The GOP has many leaders whom all have legitimate chances and ideas to win in 2012. I am only guessing here, however it seems you may see a lack in GOP leadership because you may not diversify your news. Look around, they are there. Rest assured: Obama will be gone in 2012 - period.
First, I didn't write the reply you responded to. Also, I left you a link to the dept. of labor and statistics so you could check yourself to see who is lying. You obviously didn't because holding you opinion seems more important than the facts.
At the ground level, as I said earlier. I was able to get a job per Obama legislation that kept teachers from being canned, and several positions were added to the Dept. of Education which was a direct effect of Obama and I was finally able to get a job.
My daughter was also finally accepted for insurance after several years of being denied. That was a direct effect of Obama.
The dept. of Lab. in July reflects hundreds of thousands of jobs that were added however, in July, it seems as though people didn't look for jobs. So the jobs are out there but people are not looking for them. Why?
I am guessing that some folks are too busy believing the garbage that the cons are telling folks about there not being jobs when in reality, if you care to join it, there are jobs.
Also, the reading comment is a quote from a rep.cons. forum stating that they believe liberals or anyone who opposes FOX new actually, are a product of the education system and a bunch of stupid bastards. Not my words, but the words of the people leading your pack.
So you can believe that I live some sort of high and rich life if you want but that is also not true.
Ps. I also asked you if you received anything from the feds stating that you must purchase insurance.
Sandra - it is pretty rare for someone to change their mind, even when they are presented with indisputable facts. I really admire people who will look at the facts and change their public position on something.
Sadly, those people are few and far between. RU Blog doesn't appear to be one of them.
It is a little much, in my opinion, to suggest that people are not looking for jobs because conservatives are telling them they do not exist.
Wow, and on what facts do you base that opinion on, when every single economist including members of this administration have acknowledged the loss of jobs and the continued anemic job growth? You may well be the only one in the country with that view.
Did you read my post? You are refuting a point I did not make. Stop setting up a straw man and attacking it because you want to make a point.
Oh yes they do Sarah Palin with Glenn Beck as her running mate. Or perhaps Michelle Bachman.
Sarah Palin is way out of her league and in my opinion not qualified for the presidency.
Glenn Beck is a commentator, no one is suggesting Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow run on the D ticket?
Michelle Bachman still has a far greater understanding of how federalism works then anyone in this administration.
That government is best which governs least. We don't need more ideas from an incompetent government, we need to scrap the horrible ideas that are being implemented and restore the power back to the states and to the people respectively.
You said "Michelle Bachman still has a far greater understanding of how federalism works then anyone in this administration." How? What do you mean exactly?
Incidentally, why do you find state governments less oppressive than the federal government?
ms. Strong wanted an example of Obama's unconstitutionality.
Article 1 section 7 of the Constitution of the United States: "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law."
Not only is it a constitutional law to provide a 2/3 majority for a bill it is a good idea. To make sure a bill is of enough quality it ought to have the support of 2/3 of law makers unlike what Obama did with the massive health care bill.
It is obvious Obama studied constitutional law in order to better circumvent it than to adhere to it. Unprecedented power granted to his czars is another example. This comment could go on ad nauseum.
Obama is interested in passing legislation furthering his ideology more than he is interested in playing by the rules. Even more than what is actually best for the country. Anyone arguing otherwise lives in an ideological box.
because their horrible implementation of policies does not drag down the other 49. when the federal govt screws up, it screws us all, when a state govt screws up, it effects that state accordingly. the closer a govt is to the people it represents the greater the representation. they are quicker to adapt, easier to fix and less likely to cause widespread damage. republics > democracies.
RU blog, I do not understand your response. Do not tell me what you think Obama should have or ought to have done. Tell me how he has taken an act which is unconstitutional. No 2/3 majority vote was required. The health care bill was passed by scrupulously following the rules. It would have otherwise been subject to an immediate legal challenge. After making your blanket statement about unconstitutionality, you also go on to say that you believe the way that the health care bill was passed was a bad idea. That's fine. But something is not unconstitutional just because you disagree with it.
Your czar comment is also not an "example." (BTW, "czars" were first appointed during a Republican administration...) How was this unconstitutional?
"It is obvious Obama studied constitutional law in order to better circumvent it..." Actually, he studied it to graduate from law school and pass the bar exam. All law students study constitutional law in their first year.
"Anyone arguing otherwise lives in an idealogical box." Although I appreciate your even-minded and neutral approach to this issue, I think labeling anyone that disagrees with you this way may be a little uncharitable. There is, however, some unintended comedy in it.
rlaframboise---why not have a commentator, we have one of the best motivational speakers of this century, or maybe some would like to have called it motivational speaker.
We could have all the Presidential speeches in tongues.
That will make the world sit up and listen. ...... then p*ss themselves laughing!
Scrupulous following of the rules is a sophist's statement. Arguing to win isn't necessarily arguing to be right. You have obviously been schooled in the practice yourself.
Your argument is "technically" right. However, something as huge as Health Care reform (1/6 of our economy,) shouldn't have negated article 1 section 7. If this is the path we follow then why vote on anything? Merely have Obama come up with a bill and pass it on grounds it comes close enough to a majority.
Let's not forget the personal plane rides, job offerings, and closed door meetings Obama had with the crucial democrats he needed for a simple majority. The whole thing stunk. The whole nation smelled it. The whole nation will not forget. It was unconstitutional at best, underhanded at worst.
Yes Misha the United States Constitution is the Bible of social contracts. Without such a "code" to believe in and follow we become subject to tyranny. Such parameters keep Ideologues from running rough shod over countries. Also keeps government in place as representative of the people not dictator to them.
No it is more important than the bible to the governing of this nation, it is the law of the land, it takes the place of a King in the American experiment and it is so disrespected by both sides of the isle today it is disgusting.
America was dragged screaming in to health care, 40 years behind most of the developed nations.
The rest of us believe that a nation is only as strong as it's care for the underprivileged and measures in no small way the moral values of a rich country.
I always wondered why Americans were so selfish as to deny the proper care to it's people.
The medical costs in America are now and have ever been notoriously high.
Free health care means earlier intervention and a massive long term reduction in medical costs to the health system.
I was referring to the other developed countries Misha, you are still in the USA aren't you?
LOL Strictly speaking I am in Russia now, but still live in the USA - yet I am not American
Just wanted to make sure you don't count me as a supporter of something I don't support
How's the health care in Russia these days?
Much better than when it was nationalized. Still a way to go though
The health system here has some problems too, but a street bum still gets the same top surgeon as our richest individual and it works well. We do have private health cover where you can pick and choose, and get instant attention but no real need when you get the best of attention either way.
You won't pull me in a useless healthcare discussion, it is not a burning issue for me currently. Besides you know my stance on it.
RU Blog, when I pointed out that the only example you gave of Obama violating the constitution was wrong, you conceded I was "technically correct." Then you went on to say that you disagreed with Obama. Then you finished by saying "what he did was unconstitutional at best...." Something violates the constitution or it doesn't. It is like being pregnant. Please make up your mind. Thanks.
loopholes are not "constitutional." They are just that, ways to get around the constitution. I was clear about my position. Muddling my argument doesn't make it less right. Pretty clear to most he did an end run around the constitution. We shouldn't have to speak in technicalities when talking about our government. Something should pass on merit rather than slipping it through the cracks.
My mind is made up thank you.
It is clear that your mind is made up. It was long ago. You are apparently unable to distinguish the difference between policies that you disagree with and acts that violate the constitution. Saying that I am "technically correct," as you conceded earlier, means that I am correct. Something either violates the constitution or it does not. You don't have to like it, but posting repeatedly that Obama both violated the constitution, and that he didn't, just makes no sense. It is one or the other. I would ask you not to accuse me of "muddying your argument." You keep doing that yourself.
Keep focusing on semantics, so enlightening. i'll take your condescension as a sign you really don't want to be bothered with anything like truth. Too bad really. Sophistry is a disease. We can rationalize anything we want in order to win an argument. Unfortunately it brings us no closer to truth.
I believe it is your mind that has been made up long ago. Keep on spinning, i'm sure it'll serve you well.
I really don't know what else there is to say that article 1 section 7 hasn't already..... You can keep ignoring it if you like. Probably why you like Obama so much. A shared disregard for what this country was founded upon.....Luckily most non delusional people have seen the real agenda and will vote accordingly. Yay for the democratic struggle.
I'm sure you'll have another peripheral dig. However this has gotten boring. I'm out... you'll surely enjoy the last word.... however off point it may be...
Am I focusing on semantics? Like the words of the Constitution? You have all of these statements about how I don't care about the country, am delusional, support Obama, etc. All that I have asked you in this thread is to go beyond making a blanket statement that Obama violated the Constitution and tell me how. You responded by telling me that the Constitution was violated because the healthcare bill had insufficient votes to pass into law. That is plainly false. Obama could not have done that even if he wanted to. Nor would the Republican party, much less the many other opponents of the health care bill have sat idly by and permitted the health care bill to pass into law without sufficient votes. There would have been an immediate legal challenge (if you want an exemplar of how capable our political parties are at quickly mobilizing heavyweight law firms and mounting legal challenges, take a look at the 2000 election). There was no grounds for such a challenge and none was made. When I pointed this out, you conceded that I was correct. But you said you thought the vote should have been put to the Senate not as a Constitutional requirement but out of some spirit of fairness or good faith. That's fine. But then you keep making the blanket assertion that Obama violated the Constitution again... Just because you don't like something does not mean it is unconstitutional. More than one president has taken actions I disagree with or think are ill-advised. That does not make those actions unconstitutional.
ru, some people live by technicalities, not right and wrong. That is where things started going south.
Okay, but there is a difference between what you think is "right and wrong," and what the Constitution says. If you want to tell me what is "right," everyone has an opinion on that and most people are sharing those views here. If you are saying what violates the Constitution, then that is totally different and you must get technical. Things violate the Constitution or they don't and policy views on "right and wrong" are not relevant. There are things the government can do that I consider "wrong" from a moral sense or simply don't agree with. That does not make them unconstitutional.
Correct me if I'm wrong but - Health Care was passed in the House by a majority - it passed the Senate by a majority. The election of a Republican in MA changed the balance in the Senate - AFTER health care passed. Rather than reconcile the bills and return them for another vote, the House passed the Senate version so it could go straight to Obama's desk. All of this was completely proper and Constitutional.
I have one question - RU thinks that no legislation should be passed except by 2/3 majority. Will that be the case if democrats block GOP legislation when they have only 35 seats in the Senate - or will the new tune be - majority rules?
From One of Many News Accounts:
http://www.infowars.com/kucinich-sells- … force-one/
Anybody who knows Chicago politics might read between the lines and conclude that Congressman Kucinich, his family and close friends were threatened on AF 1.
I guess whatever you need to do to get your way is fine. No doubt that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the president from taking a congressman for a little ride to explain the danger to him and his family for not supporting his favorite bill, it's fine. I probably shouldn't worry too much about it. Maybe I'm blowing a little thing like presidential extortion way out of proportion. ... uh ... is that a black limo outside? No, really, I WAS ONLY KIDDDINNNGG....
So you believe that our president took a member of congress onboard airforce one and threatened him and his family with violence? Do you think Obama was going to have him whacked? No, I mean you really aren't say that...other than in jest.
Or do you mean that he brought the intense pressure, presence and moral authority that our presidents have to influence a congressman? Do you think Obama was the first president to have a private meeting with a member of congress to use that authority to convince, persuade, coerce, browbeat or cajole them? Just curious what you think. If you are concerned about presidential influence, I think you are seeing as an exception what is truly the norm. Reagan was masterful at this but all presidents do this. The authority of their office and the mandate they get from just being elected to office is hard to deny.
"The authority of their office and the mandate they get from just being elected to office is hard to deny."
Since when? And what an utterly empty and valueless statement. This is not China or Russia or Mexico, this is America.
Thank you for reminding me of what country I live in. I'm not sure what the rest of your post means other than you disagree with me in some way.
The election of the democrats and of Obama was a mandate for change, not a mandate to transform America into a national government. Folks were angry at the republicans for their uncontrolled spending, the wars, and for straying from the roots of their philosophical base, smaller and less government.
You misinterpret the so called "mandate" if you think it means the democrats were elected to shove their ideas down the throats of Americans.
Please re-read my post. I don't know what you are disagreeing with. I said that any president has influence over members of congress because of their office and because they have a mandate. They use this influence by attempting to get support from members of congress, including through using private meetings. Reagan was masterful at this but each of them do this. Read my post and respond to what i say, not what you want me to say.
I was keying on the "mandate" term. Many say Obama has a "mandate" to do whatever he wants because he was elected by a large majority. My point is that one can not assume the so called mandate was to do anything he wants. The vote was as much a rejection for Bush policies as it was a vote for Obama and was in no way a license to convert America to a single national government, a direction Obama is clearly pursuing.
I don't know how many political meetings you've actually sat thorough, and how many elected officials you know ... I've been in a few and I knew a few. One of my last meetings was with a former Secretary of Transportation of a particular who was jailed for "business as usual" ... who then had one of his people turn around and provide evidence on the very political opponent who had him jailed who also was doing "business as usual". They both ended up doing time.
I haven't seen a lot of moral authority on either side of the aisle.
I think the truth is it was probably some sort of blackmail against a family member these types of conversations go something like: "During a routine security sweep we made the unfortunate discovery that your family member has a problem with ... we're doing our best to keep a lid on it, we know how the press can blow things out of proportion ... by the way what is your stand on the latest health care proposal, that I want passed so badly?"
No, this was probably not a death threat.
If you want to believe that Obama threatened Kucinich's family in a private meeting on Airforce 1, you are entitled to that. It appears to be based entirely on concern that the president met privately with a member of congress to change his mind. If that is the only evidence you have (and it appears to be), I pointed out that presidents do that all the time. Kucinich was holding up the health care bill because he wanted to include a public option (i.e., an even more liberal version than was passed). There were many liberal democrats that were unhappy that the healthcare reform bill did not go far enough, and one by one they got behind the healthcare bill because they realized it was the best they would be able to get passed. Kucinich was the last hold out. You weren't on the plane and, with respect, your anecdote of your limited experience with the political process does not inform on what happened on that plane. Since you asked about whether I had any familiarity with the political process or have met any politicians...I do and I have. Perhaps rather more than you if your post is a complete description of your background. But I don't really want to this to devolve into arguments from authority because telling you who I've met or what I've done should not help me win this argument...just as your anecdote tells us nothing about what happened on that plane.
As I said, both seriously and tongue in cheek .... it's not unconstitutional ... but just because it helps you get your own way, whether you are Regan or Obama, doesn't make it right.
The fact that it is routine on both sides of the aisle is what disgusts me. If you think it's fine. Fine.
BTW ... I wasn't claiming authority, I was giving you background for the basis of an opinion. You asked if I really thought there was a death threat and why would I think that.
I answered the question as to why I thought what I thought. I never intended it to try to change anybody's mind, because nobody on this forum wants their mind changed. If I want to change something I do it face to face. This place is just for fun
By the way, do you know why Kucinich was opposed to the health bill? Was it because he thought it was bad for America? The answer may surprise you. Kucinich was definitely using his position to attempt to influence the direction of the bill (a direction you would not have liked I fear), and he was entitled to do so. But he is a rather odd champion for someone that thinks the healthcare bill went too far.
My experience has been that people care about procedure only when it favors the outcome they wanted. I do not believe that RU Blog would consider the language of the Constitution a technicality if that language favored him in this or any particular issue. I am also reminded of how, during the 2000 election, many democrats wanted to throw out the electoral college because Gore won the popular vote. The electoral college may be somewhat of an anachronism but wanting to toss it out because you happened to lose an election is not really a good motive. Republicans became big champions of the electoral college but I somehow think that all sides were more focused on the outcome than the system itself. It is our system and I think some people at least should focus on how procedure works rather than situationally focusing on whatever outcome they want. Reasonable minds may differ on many issues. You would surprised given how many times these forum discussions devolve into insulting each other's intelligence. I have never borne the burden of always being right and I envy people that have such conviction. Indeed, we have procedures for dispute resolution in place because of a recognition that principled and intelligent people may disagree on issues but we need a means of resolving these disputes that is fair and unrelated to the particular issue of the day. BTW, this rant is not directed at you. You just brought some thoughts to mind.
Free How the heck will it be free. Reality, Someone is going to have to pay for it.
You sir, don't understand America. America traditionally believes a government is not there to coddle its people which is why we quickly became the greatest nation on the Earth.
The merits of taking care of the down trodden are there and rightly so, but how you go about it is a slippery slope that enhances federal power and will ultimately economically stagnate or destroy this country.
I don't want my country to become like Greece, or even France or the U.K. for that matter.
I'm not sure that "understanding America" requires accepting your beliefs. We have had many social programs to help people, including Social Security, Medicare, etc. They do not go nearly as far as other countries, but when they were enacted there was also a firestorm and charges that they would make us a socialist nation and spell the end of the world. Disagree if you want but stop assuming the mantle of the one true American.
In regard to the recent direction of this topic:
The Health Care bill, Obama-care, was passed with a majority (barely) vote after outright public BRIBERY the likes of which has never been seen 'publicly' in this country, and in the face of clear 'Majority' objection of the American people.
As for the Thomas Jefferson quote, as is liberal typical, pull what suits your cause from the words of the founders and the intellects that sacrificed to build this country. As well, for many many long years the taxpayers of the USA, the taxpaying middle class and rich, have provided education to the poor by way of the Pell grant.
Are we today to say that an outright grant of 'free' money for tuition and fees for over the past 30 odd years was not enough? That we should as well have provided for birthing babies, day care, cars and fuel, luxury food rather than staples, all the while attending college on the government dime for the past 3 plus generations?
Twisted, everything is being well and liberally twisted in such a way that all the sacrifice, all the work, all the effort of so many, for so many generations, is thrown out with the trash as not enough, never enough. God forbid a poor person should have to sacrifice, put off, something their own self, children or hot shoes or hot cars, to achieve the American Dream, such rich inspiration, such surpreme self-motivation being legislated and espoused today, it leaves one speechless -- almost.
In regard to the current thread:
I'm being sorely reminded that when a slimey piece of legislation, or a slimey elected official, is about to be found out, then the level of rambling rhetoric rises to new heights, the cunning conversations multiplied to distract the easily duped and gullible -- so I'm heartened.
This one is even more cryptic than the last one. Do you disagree with someone or believe in something? What?
I am asking people to stop fighting against fire fighters, teachers, and law enforcement. Blocking the democrats about funding peoples jobs is not good.
In Arizona, they laid off law enforcement, they need them to keep immigration under control without resorting to frivolous laws and lawsuits that waste money and do nothing for their state. They need law enforcement jobs.
Fire fighters were there on 911, they put their lives on the line for people because it is their job to save people, they do it because they care. We need them. You cannot show your support for them if you take away their jobs.
Teachers struggle everyday to educate our kids. Without them only a few could afford to send their kids to private schools. Education is important and it is a right. Without them, we couldn't succeed as a society and there would be no hope for the future.
These people average 65-75,000 a year. It is not a lot of money but they do a lot for us. Don't take away their jobs because you fear big governments.
They are not politicians who are taking your money to demoralize America. They serve our society and I take pride in paying the taxes that support them.
300,000 of their jobs are being threatened because so many have this idea in their minds that they work directly for the government like politicians or something and it is not true.
They pay Union dues. They pay about 50-60 every month to pay for their benefits, they don't get free rides from the government. They pay their dues, they pay their taxes and they serve and protect us.
All I am asking is for people to think about what you are doing. Just remember, they were there on 911, without them the problems in Arizona became worse, without them our children wouldn't get to learn.
We do need them and they care about us. There are some that are corrupt but for the most part they are a backbone to a civil society.
Nothing will get done without jobs.
Wouldn't it make sense, since so many Americans are struggling to put food on their tables that maybe government worker contracts are in need of renegotiation.
Are workers of the government some kind of aristocracy that needs to maintain their lifestyle to the detriment of the rest of the population?
I don't see how having highly educated professionals teaching my children is somehow a detriment to me or to society.
Firefighters, policemen, soldiers - do they need to have their wages cut too?
If your town, state or country cannot pay its bills there are three choices.
Just claim outright bankruptcy. How much will government workers be earning if their employer goes bankrupt.
The average govt workers compensation and benefits far overshadows the average citizen.
Soldiers are not the same as career govt workers.
You missed the obvious answer - FAIR TAXES. There was a budget SURPLUS and a strong economy until Bush cut taxes for the rich and embarked on 2 wars he never remotely tried to pay for.
Capital Gains tax is 15%. That means the richest of the rich - who don't work but make their living of derrivatives and other paper - pay LESS THAN HALF the tax rate of a top doctor. The difference is that the doctor works for a living. Does the deficit bother you?
Now wouldn't the raising of capital gains lower the incentive for investors to make any transactions. Why not just invest overseas and avoid the capital gains tax all together?
If you look at the 'transactions' we are talking about, the profits are already obscene. Profits on Wall Street wore 50 Billion in the first 9 months of 2009. They aren't going to invest in Somallia.
Investing overseas does not get you out of paying the capital gains tax.
The rich tax revenues reaped under Clinton had not one thing to do with Bill Clinton, the notion is absurd, his administration's only contribution to that increase in tax revenue, and the corresponding deficit reduction, was his smiling grin of all righty then, see I told you all would be fine -- as well of course as the trashing of Glass-Stegall during his term in favor of the 'greatest financial reform since......." (sound familiar) that raked in lots of federal green before our economy collapsed about ten years later, as in 2008, from the lax and greedy banking rules ex-pres Clinton put his kiss of life upon. The new FinReg is a joke.
And the notion that the defined 'rich' making over $250K a year are living off of capital gains at a 15% tax rate is so ludicrous as to make you choke on your supper.
Bill Clinton has said that the repeal of Glass-Stegall was a mistake. It wasn't the sole cause of the GOP recession of 2008, which we are still in.
But there was 8 years of GOP control of the Congress and 8 years of GOP control of the White House, which preceeded the crash. But they had nothng to do with it. It was a time bomb that Clinton planted in the economy.
Do you make these up yourself or do you have professional gag writers?
Darn, I'll repeat myself for rhetoric choked minds:
The rich tax revenues reaped under Clinton had not one thing to do with Bill Clinton, the notion is absurd, his administration's only contribution to that increase in tax revenue, and the corresponding deficit reduction, was his smiling grin of all righty then, see I told you all would be fine -- as well of course as the trashing of Glass-Stegall during his term in favor of the 'greatest financial reform since......." (sound familiar) that raked in lots of federal green before our economy collapsed about ten years later, as in 2008, from the lax and greedy banking rules ex-pres Clinton put his kiss of life upon. The new FinReg is a joke.
And the notion that the defined 'rich' making over $250K a year are living off of capital gains at a 15% tax rate is so ludicrous as to make you choke on your supper.
Glass Steagall was repealed in November 1999. The repeal was sponsored by three Republicans.
The repeal would never have occurred without Chis Dodd -- it was bipartisan, imagine that -- and of course with Bill Clinton in control. The repeal of Glass-Stegall had been sought for years and years, it was under Clinton that it found strong ground and was shot down.
And, didn't Barney Frank have some play? Some Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae protection from the mouth of community Barney that had to be part of the .... drum roll....greatest financial reform since........and yeah, it sounds so familiar, to anyone who bothers to backtrack such recent history.
So you admit that under the Clinton administration, the deficit did shrink. Paying taxes shrinks the deficit, cutting taxes (Bush admin) increases deficit.
sr--this maynot be the time for this comment, but I do see your point. But I do have to say this, there are some, and I am going to use teachers here to make my point, that well to put it short and sweet, want the check, the benefits but don't want the work.
When I was in the first grade, there were 30 kids in the classroom, with 1 teacher, the room had order, most all grades were passing, the method of teaching was so much easier, and when we learned, we KNEW it.
I'm sorry, but this is a soft spot, and by the way, there are people who can and have went through years of college, obtained several degrees, but can't make change. This is sad, I believe all gov jobs, teachers, law, all of them, should be held accountable.
Downsizing the gov positions, that would be so easy, if one would use the common sense approach method.
Order in classrooms, is it doable, yes,,,,,it was years ago, when common sense existed.
Somebody shut me up....................
Pres. Obama is a lawyer plus a professor of law. He graduated from the HLS, and was the Pres of the Harvard Law Review. Impressive isn't it, plus he is cool, handsome, good in public speaking and he is trying his best to govern this country. I think he is doing what is right -- in health reform, taxation and war in Afghan. The economy is still recovering and we are heading in the right direction.
USA citizens are mad. And I know the different definitions of madness. You have it all. I guess I just committed hubpages suicide. Oh well. I always mean't to be a social hubber cos I am useless at that making adsense money. I concentrate on making enemies.
Your post isn't clear enough for us to know which side you are making enemies of.
macreconomics is not like that -- cut and dry, cut spending - easy as it is said but down to the household economics --
pdh...it would be major simple. Common sense approach would work wonders. The thing is, there aint many who understand that principle. But hey, if you are bringing in 50 a week, dont spend 51. It causes a DEFICIT.
may work in household economics, but there are repercussions like sacrificing the kind of foods which you can buy with the cheapest price -- also what if there are emergencies. In macroeconomics specially the kind of economy we have -- market capitalism which is to some extent regulated, a different kind of budgeting is needed -- you need to borrow to fulfill even the basic needs of the aggregate population.
In household level, remember that there are basic needs which should be met, with rising prices (we don't have a hold on this one) how can a 51 cent suffice still if prices gone up, (when food is cheaper it is less healthy) worst is that you will become unemployed (you don't have a hold on this specially if you are laid off).
the health care program of Obama is just about having options for health care and I can see that it is helping the poor a lot.
household economics is not the same as macroeconomics
Word may be bigger, sound more intimidating etc, but the principal is the exact same thing.
The health care bill that is on the table, stinks. Any way you want to spin it, I dont care, it stinks. How, well, to start with, what about the self employed folks who will be forced to add yet another cost to their already heavy load.
How about this example. Every body likes to eat. Have you ever been to a pic-nic or get together where food is the main event? You know, paper plates and all? Well, have you ever loaded down, or seen someone load down, a plate to the point that it folds? That is exactly what is going to happen to a lot of small businesses and even other income producing venues.
Basics, we HAVE to find our way back to them.
The problem with that is, so many young people today have no clue what they are.
Let's not forget that one of the reasons TARP was passed was to save the jobs of teachers, fire fighters, and the police. Over and over again Obama reiterated why we had to pass TARP.
Now, TARP still has over 400 billion dollars unspent, yet for some reason we need to spend another 26 billion to save the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and police, and we have to do this at the expense of the poor cutting food stamps to help fund this additional spending.
Please explain to me how this makes sense? Please explain to me why the unions can't take a cut in pay or benefits to save their colleagues jobs.
Oh and please explain to me why states have no place else to cut, no other spending they can eliminate besides the jobs of teachers, police, and fire fighters!
There are many many positions that can be cut. If you don't think so, may I suggest that you take a tour of your town. Take a slow look.
A cut in pay..ah. Could it make sense? My sons kindergarten teacher, making 60 grand a year. For what? Showing up and being on time. Could it possibly be that a fresh out of high school senior could teach a kindergarten student their abcs and 123s? I mean, there are many that when they start kindergarten, already know them. Oh yes, of course, the senior student, would have to undergo a background check a drug test and competency test. (Teachers don't) pay this student 12 an hour, give them a health insurance benefit, and even put in a few extras. But lets not overdo it. Since school only goes 9 months, so do the checks. (But of course they could draw unemployment). That is something I have never understood. Why pay someone 3 months that they do not work.
I know there are some that would say, ANYTHING for progress. That, is why we are in the shape we are in now. My granny used to tell me, honey, you are getting too big for your britches. Do you think a country could possibly get too big.
Police, they risk their lives to do their jobs. They need to be paid well. Our safety is in their hands. Now, what the courts do with the ones the police arrest, there is where correction needs to be directed.
There are people who go thru life just looking for someone to sue. We have all read of frivilous suits.......
Many things are overdone. Many jobs are overpaid. Yes, we all like to have that extra money.
We do not need CREATED jobs, we need NEEDED jobs.
My dad was a smart man, and one thing he told me when I was young was to go into the workforce in either food, banking or drugstores. When I asked why, he said for every drugstore and grocery store in town there is a bank.
Sorry I took so long, these are some of my pet peeves.
Common sense government. How nice it would be.
26 billion is not added on top of the 400 billion. Obama keeps fighting to keep people on. He has been helping people keep their jobs and the GOP keeps trying to take them away and they wont play even a little unless they get something they want but they are using people's jobs as leverage.
I don't believe you really understand. All those things that GOP wants to do will have a severe impact on you and you are supporting them.
Here is the tango.
Republicans want to cut taxes ie: they want to extend Bush tax cuts. -you seem to agree with this.
Democrats, in order to keep people jobs (though against tax cuts for fiscals reasons) play the game and will give 95% of America a tax cut. To pay for the tax cut, $55.00 a month is deducted from food stamps.
Republicans and Democrats say, "we need jobs." Indeed we do.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs were added in July to the private sectors. -good right?
Republicans wanted money for small businesses.
Obama is giving tax breaks to small business to hire people and start growing again.
For some reason you oppose these things. You don't make enough money to qualify for Bush tax cuts. Why do you support them?
If only tax breaks for the extremely rich was doing a lot for America, like you think it has...
Please explain to me why; while they are still getting their breaks, the economy is still sucky? If they give everyone jobs and you believe that they are the backbone of the economy and only want to extend their benefits (tax breaks through Bush) then nothing has changed for them and they aren't hiring people.
If you have a problem with the unions because of crappy employees, then contact your reps. and tell them you would rather have it reformed so that suck crappy workers are not kept on because of seniority. You can 'fight' to change the way that works to achieve a better goal.
However, just taking away their jobs is not the answer and that does more harm then good.
You first need to get your facts right.
The 26 billion is in addition to the TARP money. It's a separate bill.
Republicans can NOT stop ANYTHING. The democrats have filibuster proof majorities in both houses of congress.
I don't have a problem with unions except for the fact that they are protected by law. Why can't public service employees be non-union? Simple, the government counts on union contributions to maintain power so guess who the government wants to give our money to?
Taxes are simply too high, for everybody. The entire tax system is complicated and corrupt. It is the source of power for congress. Why can't we have a fair tax system? Why are we punishing savings, investment, risk taking, and production? We need a simple and fair tax system and a small government constrained to the revenue such a system generates.
By the way, even democrats are considering extending the Bush Tax cuts. The republicans simply can't do anything without the democrats. It's the democrats acting in bipartisan fashion in opposition to Obama's policies that has been the source of gridlock and only Obama's bribes have broken the log jam.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/rep … skyrocket/
http://washingtonindependent.com/93079/ … iness-bill
I don't have a problem with corporations except for the fact that they have the same rights as a human being under American law. Why? Simple, the government counts on corporate contributions to maintain power so guess who the government wants to give our money to?
This game goes both ways. I am free to start my own corporation - and you are free to start your own union. The difference between a corporation and union is that the union represents the interests of the members, while the corporation exists to make profit for its shareholders.
Taxes are lower on the richest Americans than they have been in 60 years. Meanwhile the richest have gotten richer over the past decades. CEO pay has gone from something like 20 times the average worker's to 300 times.
Taxes are collected by the government on behalf of the people, to be spent in the public interest. It's certainly a good thing to be aware of where your taxes go, and to be involved in the national discussion about our fiscal priorities. But don't go thinking that America can function if we keep letting the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Oh my, you are draining! The republicans can't filibuster if all the democrats (and independents which are actually democrats) stick together. Just look at the numbers.
Unions are protected, They are a monopoly protected by law. Why can't the government hire non-union workers, why can't non union workers compete for union jobs? You wouldn't want to give a corporation a monopoly but you have no problem giving that to a union?
The rich aren't getting richer at the expense of the poor, they're getting richer at their own expense, and in the process improving the lives of countless thousands.
You need to take another look at some real economic data.
Yes, I know, the evil rich. Here's a hint, punish them, don't buy anything and see what they'll do.
Now, stop paying taxes and see what the government will do.
Then tell me who is more evil.
Why don't you try not paying on your mortgage for a couple months.
Well sure a civil action will be taken against me, but the tax man will lock me up at the point of a gun and take my property.
Not likely. Very few people actually get locked up for not paying taxes.
You can get locked up in some states for nonpayment of debts too.
I am a public service employee that in non-union.
That's a rarity. You're probably not a teacher, fire fighter, or cop.
Where do you get that TARP has 400 billion unspent?
Why don't you look at your own source? Why do I have to prove everything to you? Okay so it's 309 billion, does it matter? It's more than 26 billion and more than the 35 billion the treasury has earned in interest from what it's already loaned.
Interestingly was the bailout listed as available for Fannie and Freddie... "Unlimited"
Now do you see why we're in trouble?
475 billion authorized under TARP.
397 b sent out leaves: 78 billion.
201 billion has been returned.
Equals a total of 279 billion that was not spent or has been returned. Plus there's some interest that has been earned on the loans - just about enough interest to pay for this 26 billion you are talking about.
Sorry, I have edited this post a couple times. Don't do math under time pressure.
Like I said, the numbers aren't that important, the point is TARP was supposed to be used to save those jobs and there is more than enough money in TARP to do it.
If they have made 35 billion in interest and there is still 201 billion unspent.
They are allowed up to a certain amount. It doesn't mean they literally have all that money. It's better that they do not use it if they don't have to and use the the interest gained from the initial return.
It's called reinvesting. Reinvesting 26 billion of the 35 billion.
YEAHHHH!!!! News just in the bill passed!!!! WOOOT!!!!
Like I said, the republicians can't stop the democrats from doing anything they want, even if it means destroying the nation.
Actually I'm not sure that the TARP money is just sitting there like money in a checking account, unspent. It may well be that some of the money that has been paid back to the TARP fund will be used to pay for this 26 billion. I'm no expert on the Federal Budget.
There's only 1 politician currently in any major branch of the Federal government that believes in the Constitution.
And that man is Ron Paul.
If Schiff gets elected in, and Rand gets elected in, then there will be 3...
... out of about 600.
Obama has a degree in constitution law. Why would someone who didn't believe in it waste all that time to get degree in it?
On the other hand....
The constitution is not some revered mystic document. It was draw up to signed in 1787,
it consists of laws and is not some spiritual scroll, that should never be changed.
The constitution was written by men flawed men who committed adultery, owned slaves, were apart of secret societies. As the men who wrote the constitution were flawed, also aspects of our constitution are flawed.
Things that applied to 1787 may not be feasible in 2010 and there is nothing wrong with rectifying aspect of the constitution that do not work in today's society.
by Rod Martin Jr4 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
I read this in my local paper yesterday. What do you think?Is "exceptionalism" a good word or a bad word?Does it describe what America was? What America is today?By Kathleen ParkerSunday, January 30, 2011 He...
by ahorseback6 days ago
Property taxation on the state and local levels varies in incredible amounts , Property taxes primarily can vary from a few hundred to Twenty thousand dollars for a half acre home ? ...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
this is the discussion I have wanted for a long time. Greetings, Old Poolman and when I am done I hope to get the frog out of the prince's throat. _______________________________________________--Excerpt from the link...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.