Class warfare - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #61 08-03-2011, 09:50 PM

All coprophagous individuals on this site support Obama.

boneheaddoctor · #62 08-03-2011, 09:54 PM

Really.....I'd rather have Bushes worst unemployment and deficit numbers than Obamas best ones.

If the Bush presidency was a disaster...then the Obama one is a catastrophe of biblical proportions.

tonkovich · #63 08-03-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

All coprophagous individuals on this site support Obama.

takes one to know one.

raymr · #64 08-03-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Each portion of the constitution has games played about it. Here's a hint: Every year the Supreme Court goes into session because laws conflict with the constitution. The reality is already what you fear.

The Congress and president have clearly demonstrated their inability to control their appetites over the previous 50 years. There is no indication that the congress or president have suddenly got religion. In a few months they will go back to log rolling and earmarking. It will be an election year and the cycle of increasing indebtedness will resume.

If congress cannot control itself, who will control congress?

The system of checks and balances is broken when it comes to spending. The average citizen is completely powerless once these scoundrels are in office - and it's not like you can turn to your congressman for help either. A BBA would bring some sanity and force real prioritization, i.e. needs versus wants.

Chas H · #65 08-03-2011, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Really.....I'd rather have Bushes worst unemployment and deficit numbers than Obamas best ones.

If the Bush presidency was a disaster...then the Obama one is a catastrophe of biblical proportions.

I'm not defending Obama. I'm disagreeing with your claim he was elected because of the media.
But Obama's got a long way to go before his eff-ups approach those of Bush.

Honus · #66 08-03-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Each portion of the constitution has games played about it. Here's a hint: Every year the Supreme Court goes into session because laws conflict with the constitution. The reality is already what you fear...

That is not exactly the fear I expressed previously, but it is a scary thought. Lets look at how it plays out using the language of the amendment proposed the other day.

Lets assume that there is a dispute about whether total outlays for a fiscal year exceed total receipts. I take it that a lawsuit would be brought, though I don't know who would bring the suit or who the defendants would be. What would the court be called upon to do at that point? Presumably the fiscal year has already come and gone by the time the suit is filed, otherwise the court would be unable to determine what the total receipts would be. By the time the court case and appeals are concluded, we will probably be two fiscal years down the road. Would the defendants then be ordered to go and get those excess outlays back? From whom? Would the court prioritize which recipients would be required to give their outlays back?

Wow. That's quite a lawsuit, but it would pale in comparison to the suit brought under Section 2. In that suit the judge (or perhaps it would be a jury trial) would determine whether the outlays for a fiscal year exceed one-fifth of the "economic output of the United States," whatever that is. That determination would be made by a judge who was probably an English major (that's why he or she went to law school), but I'm sure it would work out just peachy.

You could probably propose an amendment that would be less idiotic than the amendment proposed the other day, but I doubt that there is such thing as a balanced budget amendment that would do any good.

boneheaddoctor · #67 08-04-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I'm not defending Obama. I'm disagreeing with your claim he was elected because of the media.
But Obama's got a long way to go before his eff-ups approach those of Bush.

So then what exactly is better now than under Bush....the national debt has multiplied...not simply grown....unemployment is far worse......our ratings are now going to be reduced....We are now in THREE wars......not just two....

I fail to see how ANYTHING has improved under Obama.....and you can ask the roughly 14 million people that actually had jobs under Bush....that are and have been out of work just what has improved in their lives in the last 2.5 years.

And the Media had EVERYTHING to do with it....they still refuse to report on anything involving Obama in a negative light......yeah the same hacks that never had a good word to say about Bush when he was doing the very same stuff. Refusing to see the drive-by medias involvement is akin to burying your head in the sand.

And most of the lefties that had their panties in a knot over Afghanistan and Iraq when BUSH was in office.....aren't making the same stink now because their lord and messiah Obama says its necessary to be there....when nothing has changed. Nor are they upset over Libya which is a clear violation of the War powers act.....when they would have been raising holy hell if Bush had done that.

Local2ED · #68 08-04-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

He'd have to get Georg Soros' permission.

AH yes, the fox news canned reply.

When you have no clue, blame George Soros

raymr · #69 08-04-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

That is not exactly the fear I expressed previously, but it is a scary thought. Lets look at how it plays out using the language of the amendment proposed the other day.

Lets assume that there is a dispute about whether total outlays for a fiscal year exceed total receipts. I take it that a lawsuit would be brought, though I don't know who would bring the suit or who the defendants would be. What would the court be called upon to do at that point? Presumably the fiscal year has already come and gone by the time the suit is filed, otherwise the court would be unable to determine what the total receipts would be. By the time the court case and appeals are concluded, we will probably be two fiscal years down the road. Would the defendants then be ordered to go and get those excess outlays back? From whom? Would the court prioritize which recipients would be required to give their outlays back?

Wow. That's quite a lawsuit, but it would pale in comparison to the suit brought under Section 2. In that suit the judge (or perhaps it would be a jury trial) would determine whether the outlays for a fiscal year exceed one-fifth of the "economic output of the United States," whatever that is. That determination would be made by a judge who was probably an English major (that's why he or she went to law school), but I'm sure it would work out just peachy.

You could probably propose an amendment that would be less idiotic than the amendment proposed the other day, but I doubt that there is such thing as a balanced budget amendment that would do any good.

So we can sue scandalous lawmakers for passing a bad budget, and get them fined or thrown in jail? I'm in!

boneheaddoctor · #70 08-04-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Local2ED

AH yes, the fox news canned reply.

When you have no clue, blame George Soros

I suppose you believe CBS....you do remember they got caught red handed falsifying "evidence" on a fabricated smear story on Bush. Dan Rather got thrown under the bus on that one.....to protect the higher ups. Like the other drive by media...they never let the facts get in the way of a story.

You love your Koolaide don't you....good democrats only believe what the DNC tells them to believe. Which rarely has any basis in reality.

Talk about self delusion.

And George Soros does have his hands in a lot of stuff he shouldn't have. But then you worship the man who has the left duped big-time.

Do you think 9/11 never happened too? And the moon landing was a fabrication?

raymr · #71 08-04-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

I suppose you believe CBS....you do remember they got caught red handed falsifying "evidence" on a fabricated smear story on Bush. Dan Rather got thrown under the bus on that one.....to protect the higher ups. Like the other drive by media...they never let the facts get in the way of a story.

You love your Koolaide don't you....good democrats only believe what the DNC tells them to believe. Which rarely has any basis in reality.

Talk about self delusion.

And George Soros does have his hands in a lot of stuff he shouldn't have. But then you worship the man....

BHD we all know its futile to argue politics with you.

boneheaddoctor · #72 08-04-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

BHD we all know its futile to argue politics with you.

And we all know the left has no desire to accept reality when they can live in their fantasy world.

The Communists in Russia believed Stalin and his propaganda too....some of them still do even when confronted with evidence of what he did to his "Komrades".

We know what a "nice guy" he was.

Honus · #73 08-04-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

So we can sue scandalous lawmakers for passing a bad budget, and get them fined or thrown in jail? I'm in!

That does have some surface appeal, but I don't think we could sue the lawmakers. The proposed amendment doesn't really even apply to Congress. It applies to "outlays" and Congress doesn't do outlays. I guess the suit would be against the President or whomever is spending the money. Or something. I don't think they've had time to really think it through.

raymr · #74 08-04-2011, 09:23 AM

Yea the BBA might be too simple a concept as well. Since the fed "creates" money, there are other factors like inflation to consider, so some unbalance might be a good thing.

Its a shame the wagon has to go this far into the weeds before it becomes a problem though.

MS Fowler · #75 08-04-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

The voters control congress and always have. The voters have no one to blame but themselves, or other voters.

That might be true if government acted in a transparent manner. However, our government ( this is truly bipartisan) acts in any way but transparent. It has become axiomatic that the better and more high-sounding the title of the legislation, the more perverse it is. We could do a whole thread on these titles.
Government hides behind the jargon and the Press is lax in its digging out the truth behind the curtain.
The Press needs to stop accepting talking points from whatever political party, and do their own research and present the truth instead of being the principle cheerleader for any candidate or party. The Press has never actually done that in a fair and balanced way; but it is my ideal. In the past, there were newspapers of a definite political POV, but all POVs were represented by some paper, somewhere. Now, most seem to speak with the same voice. That is not good for the country.