A question for the Obama apologists

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

I don't know what Buffet consistently supports. Sometimes he seems to be all over the place. When he says that Obamacare does not address the cost problem (which is the real problem and for which the gvt. shares a great deal of responsibility) that is not just constructive criticism. That is outright saying that it does not solve the problem which it purports to solve. He seems to support "something" being done rather than the "status quo." His "support" for Obamacare is that it is "something" but not the answer. That it is "a step in the right direction" but not the answer.

What he has said about how to stay out of debt includes:

Avoid credit cards, save, don't constantly be behind the game or you'll never get out of debt. (The federal gvt. has its own credit card in selling securities, etc. and seems to constantly be behind the game and never able to get out of debt.)

Pay off debt as soon as possible and incur as little as you can. (The federal gvt. seems to have a "plan" of paying off debt in perpetuity by constantly getting deeper in debt without a care as to when or how [except by borrowing even more] the debt will be payed.)

Produce wealth by entrepreneurs rather than by gvt. edict. (So all these mandates by central gvt. to stimulate or grow the "economy" might not be the best way? Or anyway? Or counterproductive? Of course, investors like Buffet will always enhance their personal wealth by taking advantage of various regulations.)

Above all, integrity and discipline. (Hmmm. Politicians/integrity? Government spending and discipline? Not.)

[scottw]

yes, there is a difference between some debt and unsustainable growing debt

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This is wingnut talking point fluffery.

-spence

this describes your every post

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Eliminating or adding to spending for legislation are opposite sides of the same coin. Sowell refers to this coin of manipulative funding as "legislation by appropriation, and refers to a long history of it, e.g. riders attached to bills.

That you are not aware of the elimination side of the coin is irrelevant to its legality. As Sowell says, spending is authorized by the House of Representatives. That was specifically and strongly inserted into the Constitution for a definite purpose. As Madison says in The Federalist #58:

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can
propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word, hold the purse . . . This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

The House CAN REFUSE what is necessary for support of legislation. If this were the first time such a refusal has occurred (I don't know if it is) and that is why you are not aware of such, is irrelevant. If no changes, constitutional or unconstitutional, were ever to have a first time, they would not exist and we would live under the Constitution as written. Obviously, that is not the case. Many first times of something new have occurred. If you don't like this one, others do, and they may not like changes that you do. That is the consequence of change. So beware of progressive "change." You may not like what you get.

Furthermore, Obama himself has subverted laws by not enforcing them. The House can do it by withholding funds--constitutionally. The President does it unconstitutionally by not enforcing or executing, as required by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress. Obama decided not to deport illegal aliens who had only violated immigration laws; he authorized waivers from the No Child Left Behind Law; he waived the main tenet of the Clinton Welfare Reform Law which required that recipients work or prepare to do so, and he has granted various waivers from Obamacare.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

He didn't say that incoming revenues were only enough to pay off interest. He just mentioned it as an example. There is plenty of money left over after the interest is paid. If there is not enough to fund the entire scope of gvt., there obviously would have to be cutbacks. That's called budgeting. Spending within your means. There are various ways it could, and should, be done. For example" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...an-increase/2/

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

Another drive-by opinion. Cruz is going against a majority of his party and against the main stream media and against the presidential bully pulpit. He is being ridiculed by the know-it-alls and "smart" people who are concerned with "strategies" and pooh pooh his so-called lack of a "long term strategy." Such a marketing event!

[scottw]

yes...the "smart" people who used every trick and maneuver possible to get this trash passed, funny how everything is "Living and Breathing" and subject to change except the schemes that they set in stone for us to toil under for the rest of our lives only to be ridiculed or investigated if we complain....

Spence complains like a criminal that was caught and whining that the authorities didn't play fair when they arrested him....

this administration and the leadership that is pushing the agenda that he supports are the most dishonest and loathsome in our history, they are not bound by any rules or sense of decency

provoke
condsescend
mock and ridicule
pretend that you stand above it all
nauseating



"Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.
Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.."

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He probably can't think of a score high enough...

[Piscator]

Ok Spence, I'll mark you down for "Present" on that question.

I read this yesterday. "If the toilet is overflowing with $hit and continues to rise, what do you do about it? Do you address the problem and fix the issue or do you raise the bathroom ceiling and let the issue continue on"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Can't keep track of all these threads. Scoring a president is a hard thing to do. I've said many times that Obama isn't the best but he doesn't suck nearly as much as people think.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

-spence

Yeah, getting a larger line of credit does allow you to "spend" more money than you have on hand, and even more than a smaller line of credit would allow. And if you insist on the illogical reasoning that credit does not allow you to spend, but merely to pay bills, then explain what a bill is other than demand for payment for items on which you "spent." Of course, you have not really paid the bill, you've merely transferred the debt to a lender, presumably, if you're honorable and solvent, to repay the lender at a later time with actual income. That is, you will actually "spend" real money to pay for the borrowed debt which was used for spending on actual goods. So borrowing is a pseudo-method of spending and paying off the debt compounds the spending. And larger lines of credit will allow you to "spend" more money. Of course, if you constantly depend on this circuitous method of spending well beyond any means of income, and resort to more spending to pay-off previous spending as well as new spending, you would not be a reputable spender. And you will be in constant need of larger lines of credit.

As for spending declining faster than anticipated now, think SEQUESTER! Oh yeah, those dreadful cuts that were supposed to result in disastrous blows to our economy and to the help we all needed from the Federal Gvt. Well, now the results of the sequester are being applauded for the wonder of declining spending. Go figure. Strange also, how we need to raise the debt ceiling as spending is declining. Apparently, it needs to decline more. But first we must, once again, be warned of the impending doom that will result with cuts in spending. (The real doom will be to the ruling class as we find that we can actually make do with less and less of its "help"--especially with less and less of the debt it imposes on us for its "help" that makes us helpless.)

Oh . . . and those long term strategies . . . for what? Strategies to reign in the powerhouse of American freedom and transform it into the chains of a ruling class?

Another article by Hayward re "default" and other absurdities:http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/14/d...lus-plan-ever/