Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only if you have absolutely no clue how your own government functions.
There appears to be a rash of civically ignorant posters who think Presidents spend.
Let me educate you morons:
In case the actual words from the US Constitution is too difficult for you simpletons to comprehend, it means that the House originates all budgets. Not the President, not the Senate, and not the Judiciary.
President Obama is no more responsible for the lack of a budget, the Stimulus spending, or any of the other CONGRESSIONAL spending than President Reagan, or any other President.
It is a very simple concept, but every one of you idiots cannot seem to grasp the fact that "Congress controls the purse strings of the nation," not Presidents.
If these posts blaming Presidents for spending is not a truly sorry statement about the shabby state of our educational system, I do not know what is. A perfect example of the "Dumbing Down of America."
You're barking up the wrong tree with me, Jack. Reagan had carte blanche and provided results. If you're going to sit here and act like Weinberger didn't ask for $1.5 trillion over 5 years you're completely ignorant and apparently you don;t understand the team you're even on.
That truly is a ludicrous point. Wasn't Obama about hope and CHANGE? Both parties aren't equally guilty. Reagan and Bush were pikers Compared to Obama. Why pick on these two? According to your logic, the first President to run a deficit was guilty.
There has to be precedent to abuse power so people will get used to it over time. For example, LBJ's lying about the Gulf of Tonkin gave W the ability to lie about the WMD's without getting run out of office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
So now the US Constitution is a mere "technicality", eh? To bad you have never bothered to read the document, otherwise you would have discovered that Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states that the House of Representatives originates all budgets, not Presidents.
The point is OP has absolutely no clue how his own government functions, and apparently neither do you. Only a complete idiot thinks a President has the power to spend. Take a civics course and get a clue.
Your false premise is that we are still a constitutional government where the players take seriously their constitutional roles. If you believe this, there is some porridge waiting for you at the 3 bear's house. The fact is that congress authorized the executive branch to spend money directly in all the bailouts and the executive branch has printed money freely since the Fed was created. This is all spending whether it appears in a budget or not. Additionally, the executive branch has many numerous funds it has accumulated over the years in the gradual erosion of constitutional limits that has occured over the last century.
I am not the source of your anger, Glitch. It's your cognitive dissonance that is causing you to get your blood pressure up. It is like pointing out to liberals that it was Democrats who got us into WWI, caused WWII by the one sided treaty ending WWI, got us into Korea, got us into Vietnam and now have gotten us into Libya. They continue to believe that Democrats are the peaceful party and Republicans are warmongers. You can't convince them otherwise no matter how much facts and evidence you give them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
Actually, it makes perfect sense to fiscal conservatives, instead of partisan hacks. Both parties are guilty of out of control defecit spending. It started far before Reagan, and hasn't let up. Obama is just ramping up the irresponsibility of past presidents, starting in about 1932.
Agreed. One poster gets it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli
I guess the OP never heard of FDR's New Deal (that arguably prolonged the Great Depression) or LBJ's completely wasteful and ineffective 'War on Poverty'.
Yeah, Reagan started it all.
Agreed (with your premise, not about not having heard of those things). The New Deal DID prolong the depression by diverting resources to inefficient outcomes. It was not until war spending ended that the economy entered an economic boom. Most people are too ignorant to go back that far. But, if you really want to trace our problems back you should take it to Wilson who create the Fed's money printing powers, instituted the income tax and began our century long program of endless wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
All the spending had the exact same effect, keeping dollars in peoples hands.
If thew federal government stops blowing money like drunken sailor we will immediately go into a depression. An actual depression. We've out produced ourselves, built up impossible lives, leveraged it all on oil, concreted it all based on foreign conquest and now the whole finite part is kicking in.
I would prefer less dollars to the grossly devalued dollars that are the result of reckless spending policies.
Your thesis that increases in the quality of life is what led to this problem is quite wrong. When the market is left to handle things free of government interference, quality of life goes up. Air conditioning wasn't created by government. Neither was the car, nor was the oil that has powered our society for the last century. Free markets = prosperity and increased living standards. Government = reigning in or preventing prosperity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleMan
Wasn't it the Democrats who controlled congress at the end of Bush's 2nd term when we plunged into the recession? Is the left ready to admit that they themselves are to blame?
You missed the point. I am blaming both parties. Both liberals and conservatives are too blame. It's important to remember that Republicans were key to getting us into this mess just as Democrats were also. We need a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we think. Fortunately more on the right are getting on board with this but whether they can actually deliver remains to be seen.
There has to be precedent to abuse power so people will get used to it over time. For example, LBJ's lying about the Gulf of Tonkin gave W the ability to lie about the WMD's without getting run out of office.
But W did not lie about the WMD. He was just going by info he received from the CIA.
But W did not lie about the WMD. He was just going by info he received from the CIA.
That should have been his first clue. CIA Director Tenet was the very same Clinton appointee that "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia because he used "out of date tourist maps." That alone makes President Bush a moron for keeping him on as Director of the CIA.
That should have been his first clue. CIA Director Tenet was the very same Clinton appointee that "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia because he used "out of date tourist maps." That alone makes President Bush a moron for keeping him on as Director of the CIA.
True, and Clinton changing the way the CIA could obtain information from informants (they could no longer receive info from anyone who had a felony record) really affected the accuracy of the info they were able to obtain.
Still, though, there was no lying about the WMD; just poor info.
Your false premise is that we are still a constitutional government where the players take seriously their constitutional roles. If you believe this, there is some porridge waiting for you at the 3 bear's house. The fact is that congress authorized the executive branch to spend money directly in all the bailouts and the executive branch has printed money freely since the Fed was created. This is all spending whether it appears in a budget or not. Additionally, the executive branch has many numerous funds it has accumulated over the years in the gradual erosion of constitutional limits that has occured over the last century.
The last time I checked the US still had a constitutional government, unless there was a coup that nobody ever told me about. Laws continue to be enacted by Congress, the President is still the Commander-In-Chief, and the Courts continue to quasi-function.
With regard to the FRS and the printing of money, I would like to remind you that Congress has the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
In addition, Clause 2 of the same section gives Congress the power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States." So it can be reasonably argued that Congress has the authority to print as much or as little currency as they want, and by doing so they are establishing the value thereof. Congress would also have the constitutional authority to establish a federal agency that regulates the value of US currency.
While I may empathize with you concerning the FRS, it is impossible to deny that Congress does have the constitutional authority to establish such an agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
I am not the source of your anger, Glitch. It's your cognitive dissonance that is causing you to get your blood pressure up. It is like pointing out to liberals that it was Democrats who got us into WWI, caused WWII by the one sided treaty ending WWI, got us into Korea, got us into Vietnam and now have gotten us into Libya. They continue to believe that Democrats are the peaceful party and Republicans are warmongers. You can't convince them otherwise no matter how much facts and evidence you give them.
It is not anger, it is exasperation. Every election cycle it gets worse. The Office of the President and the US in general, in the perceptions of many posters, is an elected dictatorship. The President controls all spending, enact all laws, passes all budgets in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky! Its a bird, a plane, no its..... SUPER PRESIDENT!
The real scary thing is that these morons vote.
As far as Democrat Presidents getting the US into wars by deliberately lying to Congress, you did not go back far enough. It began with President Polk and the Mexican/American War in 1848. You also forgot Clinton's lies to Congress in 1999 about the "genocide" in Kosovo as justification for invading. However, I do realize that posting an exhaustive list of Democrat Presidents who have lied to Congress would take hours to compile.
In addition, Clause 2 of the same section gives Congress the power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States." So it can be reasonably argued that Congress has the authority to print as much or as little currency as they want, and by doing so they are establishing the value thereof. Congress would also have the constitutional authority to establish a federal agency that regulates the value of US currency....
However, I do realize that posting an exhaustive list of Democrat Presidents who have lied to Congress would take hours to compile.
We agree on the last part.
However, your main point reminds me of the movie "A Few Good Men" where Kevin Bacon makes the point that Code Reds don't exist because they aren't described in the manual. Then Tom Cruise gets up and asks where the mess hall is described in the manual. When told that the mess hall is not in the book, the Tom Cruise character asks the witness if he never had a meal during his whole stay at gitmo. The point is, there is a way that things are set up to work and then there is the reality. Our Constitution is no different. To blindly believe that everything works in reality exactly as described in the constitution is naive. I wish our Constitution was followed, but sadly it is not. That's the reality.
Remember, there are people who believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document". Unfortunately, some of those people sit on the Supreme Court, lead the Executive Branch and write our laws.
Finally, the President is one individual who controls the entire executive branch. Congress is 500 plus, almost 600 people who operate another branch of government. Clearly, the executive branch is going to win out in terms of being able to be more organized to get what it wants.
However, your main point reminds me of the movie "A Few Good Men" where Kevin Bacon makes the point that Code Reds don't exist because they aren't described in the manual. Then Tom Cruise gets up and asks where the mess hall is described in the manual. When told that the mess hall is not in the book, the Tom Cruise character asks the witness if he never had a meal during his whole stay at gitmo. The point is, there is a way that things are set up to work and then there is the reality. Our Constitution is no different. To blindly believe that everything works in reality exactly as described in the constitution is naive. I wish our Constitution was followed, but sadly it is not. That's the reality.
When the US Constitution is not followed, there needs to be a reckoning. Either the people vote out the violator, or Congress, or the Courts holds them accountable. I realize that every violation does not get the scrutiny it deserves, but the more grievous violations do get noticed and usually the violator is held to account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Remember, there are people who believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document". Unfortunately, some of those people sit on the Supreme Court, lead the Executive Branch and write our laws.
In the sense that the US Constitution can be, and has been, amended as society changes, it is a "living, breathing document." However, that does not mean the interpretation of the document changes. The interpretation of the document should always be as intended by the authors. Not what we want it to mean to suit our ideological agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEconomist
Finally, the President is one individual who controls the entire executive branch. Congress is 500 plus, almost 600 people who operate another branch of government. Clearly, the executive branch is going to win out in terms of being able to be more organized to get what it wants.
Correct, the President is the Chief Executive, but Congress: 1) Creates or dismantles all of the agencies and departments within the Executive Branch; and 2) Congress has the responsibility of oversight over the Executive Branch.
There are only 535 voting members of Congress: 435 in the House, and 100 in the Senate. The US territories and DC also have members in the House, but they have no vote.
Unfortunately, that is also one of our fundamental problems - we no longer have a House that is proportionally representative of the population. With a fixed number of Represenatives in the House your vote, my vote, and everyone's vote is worth less and less as the population increases. There is obviously a point where one politician can no longer represent their constituents because there are so many.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
