AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Call it what you please. Fact is the 2008-2009 federal budget is a Democrat- Congress-Bush budget.

So, why have you consistently blamed ONLY OBama for that budget ican?

Are you incapable of rational thought? Are you an IDIOT? (one that thinks Ignorance Defeats Intelligence or rational Thought) Certainly referring to you by an acronym can't be name calling? Can it ican?

1 Reply

@parados,

ican is not capable of understanding simple facts such as that the president must sign the budget before it becomes the budget. Without his signature, there's no budget. That's the reason it's called the President's Budget. He initiates the process by giving congress his budget, and ends with his signature. It doesn't matter whether the congress is loaded with republicans or democrats.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Since Obama and the Democrat Congress have taken zero action this year to reduce the deficit in the budget Bush signed last year, the budget for the period February thru September 2009, is Obama's and the Democrat Congress's budget. Furthermore, neither the TARP Bill or the Stimulus Bill are included in the budget Bush signed. Obama and the Democrat Congress have taken zero action, as of September 2009, to reduce the additional deficit created by the TARP and Stimulus Bills.

In 2008, after Bush signed the budget, TARP was passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by Bush. In 2009, the Stimulus Bill was passed by the Democrat Congress and signed by Obama. Both bills more than tripled the deficit in the budget Bush signed in 2008.

The Democrat Congress and President Obama cannot escape the fact that they are primarily responsible for the 2008-2009 deficit, and the 2009-2010 deficit. Those who voted for the Democrat Congress and President Obama share some of that responsibility.

1 Reply

Both Bush’s and Obama’s budgets include on budget and off budget expenses. In particular, both budgets include the costs of USA military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama is forecasting a deficit over his 8 year term of office, 2009 thru 2016, of $6,789 billion, or more than 3 times Bush’s 8 year term of office, 2001 thru 2008, deficit of $1,962 billion, in order to rescue the USA’s economy.

Obama and his supporters are incompetents. They have chosen to solve the USA economy problems created by Bush’s excessive spending and lending, by INCREASING instead of decreasing that excessive spending and lending.

However, if they do not want to rescue the USA's economy and instead want to replace our economy with something else, then they are incompetents plus something else!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Too bad you don't know what you are talking about. You're just as ignorant about economics and politics as is okie.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

According to dyalexia we who exhibit the audacity to disagree with wealth REDistributionists, display traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with ourselves to the exclusion of all others. We are egotistical and ruthless in the persistence of our ideals and gratification along with dominance and ambition.

Dyslexia, by this criticism of us, you imply you are not capable of providing rational rebuttals to our assertions. Thank you!

yes of course ican you're right; your overwhelming rationality leaves me kicking the dirt at my loss of ability to rebut your assertions.

0 Replies

"Dave, I think there is a problem with ICAN9000."

0 Replies

The "stimulus bill" orders the distribution of government tax revenue paid by private individuals and private organizations that earned it, to private individuals and private organizations that did not earn it, and further orders the behavior of both payers and recipients of those tax revenues. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President or Congress of the USA granted the power to do this.

John F. Kennedy quoting Abraham Lincoln in a speech at a Yale University graduation said, "No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are better off whenever any one of us is made better off."

Too many Americans have already discovered, "they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. " Increasing numbers of Americans do this by electing candidates who ignore our Constitution and promise to vote and do vote Americans "money from the public treasure." As a result we are headed from "complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

To stop and reverse this damnable trend, we must find and support candidates who shun the politics of envy for the politics of freedom to secure our God endowed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Who among us Americans shuns the politics of envy for the politics of freedom? All of us true Americans shun the politics of envy for the politics of freedom. All of us true Americans root for everyone to become the best they can be. We must defend ourselves against those who seek to suppress those who accomplish more than they do.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America, effective as of March 4, 1789

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You are an idiot; what the congress and president does are provided for in our Constitution.

Show us where it does not?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You are an idiot; what the congress and president does are provided for in our Constitution.

Show us where it does not?

I infer from your post you are unable to make a rational rebuttal!

That is probably because you do not understand that it is your responsibility to support your own allegation, "what the congress and president does are provided for in our Constitution."

Where in the Constitution is: "what the congress and president does are provided for in our Constitution?"

I think the answer can be found in the following excerpts from the Constitution:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
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.
…
Section 9.
…
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

…
Article II
Section 1.
…
The President
…
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

…
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
…
Article IV
…
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
…
Article VI
…
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
…
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Bill of Rights (1791)
…
Amendment V
No person
…
shall
…
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
…
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

President Obama’s Administration by his implementation of TARP and the Stimulus Bill is transferring private property from those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Neither in Article I Section 8, or in Amendment V, has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such transfers of private property. Any branch of the federal government that makes such transfers of private property violates both the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution" that is required of all of its members according to Article VI. Because making such property transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States," then according to Amendment X, the exercise of such powers violates the Constitution.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, What part of this sentence in the Constitution do you not understand?

Quote:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, What part of thist sentence in the Constitution do you not understand?
Quote:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Cice, what part of that CLAUSE--it's not a sentence because it is ended with a semicolon not a period--in the Constitution do you not understand?

I bet it's the part that says, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." I further bet you do not understand that "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the particular welfare of some Americans at the expense of the particular welfare of other Americans. It means providing for that which enables the United States to SECURE THE RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS.

From the preamble to the Constitution:

Quote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

If it has a subject and a verb, it's a sentence. Where did you learn English?

Why is it that the Supreme Court never challenged what the president and congress has done concerning "providing for the general welfare?"

Are you a constitutional attorney? Where did you earn your law degree?

Are you trying to say that your interpretation of the constitution surpasses that of the supreme court?

You need to have your head examined.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ican's comments are in blue.

cicerone imposter wrote:

If it has a subject and a verb, it's a sentence. Where did you learn English?
Perhaps you are correct. My grade school teachers insisted that sentences end with a period. However, my dictionary says that a sentence is: "a gramatically self-contained unit consisting of a word or a syntactically related group of words ... that in writing begins with a capital letter and concludes with appropriate punctuation." Since the phrase "appropriate punctuation" is not defined in my dictionary, you may be correct.

Why is it that the Supreme Court never challenged what the president and congress has done concerning "providing for the general welfare?"
The Supreme Court only decides issues brought to it by plaintiffs.

Are you a constitutional attorney? Where did you earn your law degree?
No, I am not a Constitutional Attorney. But I can read and understand the Constitution as written and adopted. Also, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton among others interpreted the phrase "general welfare of the United States" the same way I do.

Are you trying to say that your interpretation of the constitution surpasses that of the supreme court?
Yes, on this issue my interpretation and Madison's et al surpasses that of the Supreme Court since 1937. A majoriy of the Supreme Court can reverse its previous decisions without the permission of either of the other branches of our government.

You need to have your head examined.
For what?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Why is it that the Supreme Court never challenged what the president and congress has done concerning "providing for the general welfare?"
The Supreme Court only decides issues brought to it by plaintiffs.

Who are the "plaintiffs?" Why hasn't there been any challenge?

Are you a constitutional attorney? Where did you earn your law degree?
No, I am not a Constitutional Attorney. But I can read and understand the Constitution as written and adopted. Also, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton among others interpreted the phrase "general welfare of the United States" the same way I do.

How can you speak for Madison and Hamilton? Also, times have changed since they were alive, and the interpretation of the Constitution has been working without challenge in terms of presidential budgets. Why is that?

Are you trying to say that your interpretation of the constitution surpasses that of the supreme court?
Yes, on this issue my interpretation and Madison's et al surpasses that of the Supreme Court since 1937. A majoriy of the Supreme Court can reverse its previous decisions without the permission of either of the other branches of our government.

If your interpretation is superior, why hasn't there been any challenge?

You need to have your head examined.
For what?

To overcome your belief that you are superior in interpreting the Constitution of the US. There are many Constitutional scholars in this country, and those who are republicans would have surely challenged Obama and the congress if they had a case.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Also, don't forget; the republicans brought impeachment charges against Bill Clinton for sex. Breaking any laws as it pertains to the Constitution is a more serious crime, but the conservatives have not made any charges. Why?

Do you still believe your knowledge of the Constitution is superior to all the republican Constitutional lawyers?

Are they all stupid?

0 Replies

How many have clicked on the Sarah's new book ad? Aren't y'all just dying to read what this member of the Republican intelligentsia has to say.

She should do a book with McCain in which they duel it out to see which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.

2 Replies

@JTT,

It's probably going to be on the best seller's list. Tells us a whole lot about our country and it's people.

0 Replies

@JTT,

It will easily be a better book than Obama's books. At least the title will probably make sense, not something dumb and dumber like "audacity of hope."

1 Reply

@okie,

wanna betcha?

T
K
O

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know