The Budget Deal - Page 7

Originally Posted by trumptman


Really?

You're no fun anymore BR. There used to be some lucidity to your postings. Now they just are hateful diatribes and ranting.

Originally Posted by tonton

Yeah, just like tax cuts for the rich which when voted on by Congress, were set to 'expire'.

Originally Posted by BR

You just gave me the definition of the word unconstitutional. You did not cite any specific language as to why corporate subsidies fall under that category. That's very weak.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

There is no specific language. It's not in the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

There is no specific language. It's not in the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Oral sex and Jello shots are unconstitutional! What a country!

Originally Posted by e1618978

Filibuster? How many tea party people are there? Could they filibuster long enough to run the country out of money?

Originally Posted by tonton

LOL

Originally Posted by tonton

Actually, Nick, he's right. You lost the debate about "consent" because you didn't understand the concept. There was nothing he could have or should have added to the discussion.

Originally Posted by BR

It's difficult these days to find a topic on here where you and your cohorts won't accept facts into evidence and hide behind their prejudices.

Originally Posted by BR

You are the ones who claim that a Jewish Zombie absolves you of all personal responsibility. It's hard not to give you a sideways look.

Originally Posted by tonton

Not as stupid as not having the vaguest clue what 'consent' means in the first place.

Quiz: Can an adult 'consent' to murder someone? Can an adult consent to being euthanized? A woman who is raped... Did she consent? Did the rapist?

Originally Posted by tonton

Then explain to me exactly why the idiots called their 'expiry' a tax increase?

Originally Posted by tonton

Actually, he's talking about powers granted to Congress in the context of the tenth amendment, but he's ignorant about the meaning of 'regulate commerce' and what that covers.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Because taxes would have increased.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Or he simply takes a more constrained view of what it means to "regulate commerce."

Originally Posted by tonton

No they wouldn't have. They would have been at exactly the level promised by Congress when the tax cuts were passed. That's a zero percent increase. Obama effectively passed another tax cut to keep them at the lowest level they've been since 1950.

Originally Posted by tonton

Seems I'm not going to get any answers for this, so I'll go ahead and give them to you.

Yes; yes; no; yes.

Consent has absolutely nothing to do with legality, except where consent is specifically defined by the law. This is what Nick didn't understand about the concept. He thought someone can't consent to being euthanized because euthanasia is illegal.

Obama said important votes remained to be taken but that leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress were agreed to a plan that would initially cut about $1 trillion from U.S. spending, "the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president" in the 1950s."

But he said: "Most importantly it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. And it will allow us to lift the cloud of doubt and uncertainty" that has hung above the United States for weeks.

Originally Posted by tonton

Yes, a view that has never been recognized by the Supreme Court. Hence, NOT unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So they plan to "cut" $2T in spending.

Uh huh.

First the spin:



Ummm...that's as a percentage...of something. Domestic spending will not be the lowest level "since Dwight Eisenhower was president."

And more hysterical fear-mongering by our Blamer-in-Chief:



But let's put this into perspective. These so-called spending "cuts" (most likely cuts in the growth of spending, not actual reductions in spending) are over 10 years.

The first point to note here is that current congresses and presidents cannot speak for future congresses and presidents. So pretty much anything beyond then next 2-4 years is just a wish...or a hope.

But even if these were solid "cuts," we're talking about an average of about $200B per year. We'r currently running deficits of $1.5T per year. This isn't even cutting the deficit by 15%! It only cuts the overall budget by less than 6%! All this and we were told the world was coming to an end.

This is a fucking joke!

Originally Posted by trumptman

It is a fucking joke but considering you have an entire liberal media complex who have spent the last couple weeks using their "new tone" to call the Republicans extremists, terrorists, the Taliban and to be holding America hostage and Republicans really do still only have one half of one branch of power, it's as good as it is going to get..

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Not to mention being Obama's personal PR agency telling everyone that Obama was all about compromising and saving the country.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I know you.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'm sure you would have rathered we go into default.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'd say the media called it like it is.

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

The deal was consummated Sunday night, the text of the bill was posted in the wee hours of Monday morning, and the House was expected to vote first on it Monday afternoon or evening. But there are still plenty of concerns in both parties and in both chambers.

Liberal Democrats have had the most averse reaction to the plan, which ensures between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade without requiring any of it to come from tax increases.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Laws were never meant to be enacted by decree, yet that is what we have allowed the Supreme Court to do.

If a certain power has not been specifically enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies.

Want to change the Constitution? That's where the Amendment process comes in. You will note that the amendment process has been abandoned because when you can legislate by decree, why do you need amendments?

All we have to do nowadays is get people in positions of power that interpret the Constitution the way we want and force people to go along with that interpretation.

That is not freedom. That is tyranny.

Originally Posted by tonton

Oh, stop it. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, and that's exactly what they do.

And Congress has the power to regulate commerce. There's no language in the Constitution whatsoever that says that such regulation does not include offering incentives.

In the context of the above, about the regulation of commerce, there's no need to amend the Constitution. If you want to forbid the US Gov't from paying out incentives as part of their regulation of commerce, then it it YOU who would have to make an amendment.

But isn't that what you're proposing to do? To interpret the constitution in the way that suits YOUR political ideas?

You have the freedom to elect officials that support your extremist interpretation of the Constitution, in the hopes that they can get enough power to get your intended vote on the Supreme Court. Go ahead and use that freedom.

Explaining the Republicans’ vision in a response to President Obama’s radio address on Oct. 30, 2010—just before the election—Rep. John Boehner explained that “Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them.”

“The American people are in charge of this country, and they deserve a Congress that acts like it,” said Boehner. “Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them--something they didn't get when the 'stimulus' was rushed into law. We should put an end to so-called 'comprehensive' bills that make it easy to hide wasteful spending projects and job-killing policies. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view--not written in the Speaker's office, behind closed doors.”

The promise to post bills online for three days before voting on them was included in a section of the Pledge to America that focused on reforming Congress.

“Americans have lost trust with their government, which has too often ignored the will of the people in favor of party loyalty and a desire to pass partisan bills at any cost,” said the introduction to that part of the Pledge to America. “Backroom deals, phantom amendments, and bills that go unread before being forced through Congress have become business as usual. Never before has the need for a new approach to governing been more apparent than under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process and give the American people a greater voice in their Congress.”

Curiously, a summary of how the Republican Congress has fulfilled the Pledge that is included on the House Republican Conference’s Web site qualifies the language of the promise to post legislation online three days before voting on it. This summary headlines the Pledge’s section on the three-day rule: “A Three Day Waiting Period on all Non-Emergency Legislation.”

The words “non-emergency” or “emergency” do not appear anywhere in the text of the original Pledge for America as published by the House Republicans, and as still available in full-text form on the Republican Conference’s Web site.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Biden: Tea partiers like 'terrorists'In this day and age, can you really call someone a "terrorist" without also implying that they should be treated how other "terrorists" are treated by the United States and its allies?

Originally Posted by tonton

Perhaps not, but apparently it's just fine and dandy to throw out labels like "Socialist" and "Communist" (even when they don't even come close to applying), knowing full well what McCarthy did with that.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by presidents who want them to interpret the Constitution a certain way.



See the 10th Amendment. If it's not specifically enumerated as a Federal power in the Constitution, it falls to the states/people.



Again, see the 10th Amendment. The power to forcibly remove property from the people to give to businesses is not expressly granted to the Federal Government. Therefore, that power falls to the states or to the people.

I have absolutely no problem with amending the Constitution to clarify what "regulation of commerce" means instead of leaving that up to "interpretation" by a government interested in perpetuating and expanding its own power.



No. I'm proposing following the Constitution as it is written and resuming the amendment process.



Stop throwing around the word "extremist" when you don't agree with someone and stick to the issues.

Since when is it "extremist" to advocate following the Constitution as it is written, rather then being subject to the whim of a few people in flowing robes who legislate by decree?

That is the form of government our forefathers declared independence from.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

No you don't.




The US wasn't going to go into default on August 2nd. You were lied to.




I have no doubt they called it like they saw it.

No you don't.

The US wasn't going to go into default on August 2nd. You were lied to.

I have no doubt they called it like they saw it

Originally Posted by tonton

Congress has the power to collect taxes (specifically enumerated). Congress also has the power to regulate commerce (specifically enumerated). Paying incentives is part of the regulation of commerce (common interpretation). Therefore, Congress using public funds to offer incentives is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

No, it is not. There is no language in the Constitution specifically stating that Congress has the power to pay incentives to businesses. None.

A group of men decided that it wanted to use government to give incentives to business and tried to justify it by broadly interpreting "regulate commerce" to include that specific power rather than amending the Constitution to spell out exactly what "regulate commerce" means.

"Regulate commerce" was used as justification for trying to force citizens to purchase health insurance, which is also unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by tonton

You're ignoring the point. Offering incentives is part of regulation of commerce. Just because you don't like what that implies with regard to powers granted to Congress doesn't change that. Does Congress have the power to spend tax money on office stationery? Do we need an amendment to allow them to do that? For fuck's sake, with people like you around, no wonder our tax code is such a mess.

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Originally Posted by tonton

You're ignoring the point. Offering incentives is part of regulation of commerce. Just because you don't like what that implies with regard to powers granted to Congress doesn't change that. Does Congress have the power to spend tax money on office stationery? Do we need an amendment to allow them to do that? For fuck's sake, with people like you around, no wonder our tax code is such a mess.