|
|
Post by Leo on Mar 14, 2014 2:11:13 GMT
Shiva, I fully understand the point you are making, and agree with it in the conceptual sense. The concept that all men have equal value as beings is praiseworthy and a goal which we should all seek. Where the Declaration of Independence fails to convince is the Creator bit. There is no evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible Being, and while I mean no disrespect to the spiritual beliefs of anyone, it is a false premise to base any rights upon an unproven concept.
The rights we enjoy in the practical sense come from our respective societies, and the international community (by agreement,)and vary accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 14, 2014 12:51:36 GMT
Shiva, I fully understand the point you are making, and agree with it in the conceptual sense. The concept that all men have equal value as beings is praiseworthy and a goal which we should all seek. Where the Declaration of Independence fails to convince is the Creator bit. There is no evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, invisible Being, and while I mean no disrespect to the spiritual beliefs of anyone, it is a false premise to base any rights upon an unproven concept. The rights we enjoy in the practical sense come from our respective societies, and the international community (by agreement,)and vary accordingly.
Thomas Jefferson chose to be intentionally vague in referring to the "creator" as opposed to "God" as this was in a time of transition from John Locke's arguments for the "natural rights of man" given to us from God and the understanding of the "inalienable rights of the person" that are inherent in all of us.
The knowledge and understanding of the "Rights of the Person" has sadly remained relatively stagnant and perhaps regressed somewhat since 1776 and that is a pity but then it always was a scholarly pursuit of the intellectuals to begin with. There have been some that have pursued this knowledge and understanding but sadly they almost always attempt to distort our understanding by putting political spin on it. Perhaps one of the worst at this was Ayn Rand that provided some insight but then corrupted it by trying to use her arguments to promote a political agenda that was completely separate. She made some good statements about the inalienable rights of the person but then drew the wrong political conclusions from them in many cases. Understanding the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" has been my greatest intellectual pursuit over the last 20 years. That and placing them in the context of a government of the people where we can, based upon compelling arguments, voluntarily impose limited restrictions upon our Freedom to Exercise those Inalienable Rights but that such infringements should be to the least extent possible to support the benefit to society established by the compelling arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 14, 2014 16:13:54 GMT
They were discussing the Trinity with Melvyn Bragg on Radio 4 yesterday. The concept is MUCH clearer than the muddled thinking of Eighteenth Century slaveownsers, in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 14, 2014 19:58:15 GMT
Although I watch FNC regularly--and I almost never miss Special Report at 5:00 PM CT--I did not notice this. I do not know if it simply went unreported, or what. I tend to agree with you, on principle, that both chambers of Congress should be required to sign onto this resolution. As a purely practical matter, however, that would be amenable to exactly the same sort of partisanship as the single-chamber alternative: It is very hard to imagine, for instance, that Harry Reid might allow such a lawsuit to proceed against Barack Obama.
I believe that's just a matter of how the legislation is crafted. It could over-ride House and Senate rules and require a vote be brought before the second body within a specified time frame, without amendment, and be determined by a simple majority vote. It still wouldn't exclude partisan based lawsuits if the same party held control of both houses of Congress but it would reduce the probablility.
I continue to find it interesting that the House continues with passage of this type of legislation while ignoring matters of great importance to the nation such as immigration reform, a complete overhaul of the tax codes focused on tax burden relative to income to fund our government expenditures, and fixing our national infrastructure that has been falling into complete disrepair for decades.
I'm not saying that this isn't something that could be of national interest but there are far more pressing issues for Congress to address.
"[T]his type of legislation" has just now passed the House-- www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/house-backs-bill-to-sue-president-over-laws/ --although I cannot imagine that Harry Reid might allow it to ever come to the floor of the Senate; so Barack Obama will not be forced to veto it. Still, as a purely political tactic, I think it is good to force House Democrats to take a stand, one way or the other, on this matter. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 15, 2014 10:37:38 GMT
I believe that's just a matter of how the legislation is crafted. It could over-ride House and Senate rules and require a vote be brought before the second body within a specified time frame, without amendment, and be determined by a simple majority vote. It still wouldn't exclude partisan based lawsuits if the same party held control of both houses of Congress but it would reduce the probablility.
I continue to find it interesting that the House continues with passage of this type of legislation while ignoring matters of great importance to the nation such as immigration reform, a complete overhaul of the tax codes focused on tax burden relative to income to fund our government expenditures, and fixing our national infrastructure that has been falling into complete disrepair for decades.
I'm not saying that this isn't something that could be of national interest but there are far more pressing issues for Congress to address.
"[T]his type of legislation" has just now passed the House-- www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/house-backs-bill-to-sue-president-over-laws/ --although I cannot imagine that Harry Reid might allow it to ever come to the floor of the Senate; so Barack Obama will not be forced to veto it. Still, as a purely political tactic, I think it is good to force House Democrats to take a stand, one way or the other, on this matter.
The only problem from a political tactics standpoint is the problem I pointed out because the "House or Senate" provision was unacceptable as neither alone represents Congress. Not being partisan on this issue (and seeing it could have some merit in principle) if I was a House member, regardless of party, I would have voted against it on those grounds alone. The law wasn't crafted "in the best interests of the nation" but instead as flawed partisan legislation that any respectable member of the House should have voted against.
While I know that a lot of "conservatives" believe that some of President Obama's executive orders are somehow unprecedented I've not found that to be true. The president has broad discretionary powers when it comes to how laws are enforced and these powers have been used by every president in recent history.
If there was ever a contentious executive order I'd find that to be President Nixon's cancellation of US participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement (treaty) in 1971 when he stopped the Treasury from redeeming foreign debt in gold at a rate of $35/oz. How can a president override the authority of the Senate which approves all treaties? What is really strange is that this cancellation of US participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement was supposedly based upon EO 11615 but upon reading it I don't see specific language that terminated our participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11615
Many have stated that President Nixon removed the US from the gold standard with this executive order but he didn't as he didn't even address redemption of "dollars" in "gold" for US citizens as they were prohibited from redeeming dollars for gold based upon the Emergency Banking Act of 1935. Two years later, under the Ford Adminstation, the Congress repealed the Emergency Banking Act once again allowing Americans to redeem "dollars for gold" as provided for by Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 which states, "They [Federal Reserve notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money [US minted gold and silver coins] on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
Since 1973 when the Congress repealed the Emergency Banking Act not a single president has enforced this law.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 15, 2014 20:32:58 GMT
"[T]his type of legislation" has just now passed the House-- www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/12/house-backs-bill-to-sue-president-over-laws/ --although I cannot imagine that Harry Reid might allow it to ever come to the floor of the Senate; so Barack Obama will not be forced to veto it. Still, as a purely political tactic, I think it is good to force House Democrats to take a stand, one way or the other, on this matter.
The only problem from a political tactics standpoint is the problem I pointed out because the "House or Senate" provision was unacceptable as neither alone represents Congress. Not being partisan on this issue (and seeing it could have some merit in principle) if I was a House member, regardless of party, I would have voted against it on those grounds alone. The law wasn't crafted "in the best interests of the nation" but instead as flawed partisan legislation that any respectable member of the House should have voted against.
While I know that a lot of "conservatives" believe that some of President Obama's executive orders are somehow unprecedented I've not found that to be true. The president has broad discretionary powers when it comes to how laws are enforced and these powers have been used by every president in recent history.
If there was ever a contentious executive order I'd find that to be President Nixon's cancellation of US participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement (treaty) in 1971 when he stopped the Treasury from redeeming foreign debt in gold at a rate of $35/oz. How can a president override the authority of the Senate which approves all treaties? What is really strange is that this cancellation of US participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement was supposedly based upon EO 11615 but upon reading it I don't see specific language that terminated our participation in the Bretton Woods Agreement.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11615
Many have stated that President Nixon removed the US from the gold standard with this executive order but he didn't as he didn't even address redemption of "dollars" in "gold" for US citizens as they were prohibited from redeeming dollars for gold based upon the Emergency Banking Act of 1935. Two years later, under the Ford Adminstation, the Congress repealed the Emergency Banking Act once again allowing Americans to redeem "dollars for gold" as provided for by Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411 which states, "They [Federal Reserve notes] shall be redeemed in lawful money [US minted gold and silver coins] on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
Since 1973 when the Congress repealed the Emergency Banking Act not a single president has enforced this law.
FDR went a very long way toward abolishing the gold standard (albeit in the midst of the Great Depression; one may certainly advance the case that extraordinary measures were necessary, under the circumstances); and Nixon just about completed the act. Note: I never cared much for Richard Nixon, in most ways; however, I did like one thing about him , viz., that the Soviet leaders considered him mildly deranged; they feared that he might just wake up one morning, and decide that it would be great fun to nuke Moscow. And that is exactly the sort of fear that I would prefer to instill in America's enemies. But I digress. I certainly do believe that President Obama has done his very best to circumvent Congress--and especially the Republican-controlled House--with his "pen" and "phone" that he bragged about in mid-January, together with his "we can't wait" philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 16, 2014 8:55:48 GMT
FDR went a very long way toward abolishing the gold standard (albeit in the midst of the Great Depression; one may certainly advance the case that extraordinary measures were necessary, under the circumstances); and Nixon just about completed the act. Note: I never cared much for Richard Nixon, in most ways; however, I did like one thing about him , viz., that the Soviet leaders considered him mildly deranged; they feared that he might just wake up one morning, and decide that it would be great fun to nuke Moscow. And that is exactly the sort of fear that I would prefer to instill in America's enemies. But I digress. I certainly do believe that President Obama has done his very best to circumvent Congress--and especially the Republican-controlled House--with his "pen" and "phone" that he bragged about in mid-January, together with his "we can't wait" philosophy.
While the federal government has effectively dodged having to redeem Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins, and considering we're addressing issues of Constitutionality going before the US Supreme Court, I've often wondered what would happen if a State Treasurer demanded redemption of Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle Gold and Silver coins so it could meet the requirements of Article I Section 10 to pay it's debts in gold and silver. I don't know how the Supreme Court could not require the redemption so the State could meet this Consitutional requirement.
There is a good article on "delayed" actions and executive orders worth reading.
bnmng.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/executive-delay/
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 17, 2014 0:01:27 GMT
FDR went a very long way toward abolishing the gold standard (albeit in the midst of the Great Depression; one may certainly advance the case that extraordinary measures were necessary, under the circumstances); and Nixon just about completed the act. Note: I never cared much for Richard Nixon, in most ways; however, I did like one thing about him , viz., that the Soviet leaders considered him mildly deranged; they feared that he might just wake up one morning, and decide that it would be great fun to nuke Moscow. And that is exactly the sort of fear that I would prefer to instill in America's enemies. But I digress. I certainly do believe that President Obama has done his very best to circumvent Congress--and especially the Republican-controlled House--with his "pen" and "phone" that he bragged about in mid-January, together with his "we can't wait" philosophy.
While the federal government has effectively dodged having to redeem Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle coins, and considering we're addressing issues of Constitutionality going before the US Supreme Court, I've often wondered what would happen if a State Treasurer demanded redemption of Federal Reserve notes in American Eagle Gold and Silver coins so it could meet the requirements of Article I Section 10 to pay it's debts in gold and silver. I don't know how the Supreme Court could not require the redemption so the State could meet this Consitutional requirement.
There is a good article on "delayed" actions and executive orders worth reading.
bnmng.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/executive-delay/
The above polemic conveniently ignores the fact that President Obama is promiscuously using executive orders for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congress. In fact, Congress even suggested that it be allowed to vote on the measure to delay the employer mandate; but President Obama refused, apparently out of some fear that the ACA's opponents would do more to the bill than just delay the employer mandate. As for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes, tangentially, I should probably note that fairly recently--I think it was about a year ago--the state of Virginia was talking about issuing its own currency (which hearkens back to the way things were in America in the days of the Articles of Confederation). I do not know, however, whatever happened to this idea. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 18, 2014 1:19:06 GMT
The above polemic conveniently ignores the fact that President Obama is promiscuously using executive orders for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congress. In fact, Congress even suggested that it be allowed to vote on the measure to delay the employer mandate; but President Obama refused, apparently out of some fear that the ACA's opponents would do more to the bill than just delay the employer mandate. As for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes, tangentially, I should probably note that fairly recently--I think it was about a year ago--the state of Virginia was talking about issuing its own currency (which hearkens back to the way things were in America in the days of the Articles of Confederation). I do not know, however, whatever happened to this idea.
While I do remember a couple of members of Congress suggesting that Congress take take up the issue of the employer mandates I don't recall it being representative of Congress as a whole. Of course Congress doesn't need President Obama's blessing to take up the matter.
I don't know that the claim that President Obama is intentionally trying to circumvent Congress. What we do know is that nothing to improve "Obamacare" or to improve implementation was likely to come from the House of Representatives. Over 40 House measures have tried to repeal "Obamacare" but I don't recall even one that tried to do anything to fix it or facilitate implementation.
States cannot issue legal tender money (species coinage) or legal tender currency.
The Treasury could redeem Federal Reserve notes in US gold and silver coinage but it would have to revalue the coins like it last did with the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. When I ran the numbers a one-ounce gold coin would have to be a $5,000 denomination coin (up from $50 today). Using that as the foundation for the coinage the other denominations can be derived.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 18, 2014 16:38:05 GMT
The above polemic conveniently ignores the fact that President Obama is promiscuously using executive orders for the explicit purpose of circumventing Congress. In fact, Congress even suggested that it be allowed to vote on the measure to delay the employer mandate; but President Obama refused, apparently out of some fear that the ACA's opponents would do more to the bill than just delay the employer mandate. As for the redemption of Federal Reserve Notes, tangentially, I should probably note that fairly recently--I think it was about a year ago--the state of Virginia was talking about issuing its own currency (which hearkens back to the way things were in America in the days of the Articles of Confederation). I do not know, however, whatever happened to this idea.
While I do remember a couple of members of Congress suggesting that Congress take take up the issue of the employer mandates I don't recall it being representative of Congress as a whole. Of course Congress doesn't need President Obama's blessing to take up the matter.
I don't know that the claim that President Obama is intentionally trying to circumvent Congress. What we do know is that nothing to improve "Obamacare" or to improve implementation was likely to come from the House of Representatives. Over 40 House measures have tried to repeal "Obamacare" but I don't recall even one that tried to do anything to fix it or facilitate implementation.
States cannot issue legal tender money (species coinage) or legal tender currency.
The Treasury could redeem Federal Reserve notes in US gold and silver coinage but it would have to revalue the coins like it last did with the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985. When I ran the numbers a one-ounce gold coin would have to be a $5,000 denomination coin (up from $50 today). Using that as the foundation for the coinage the other denominations can be derived.
I cannot imagine why you would not be sure if President Obama is trying to circumvent Congress. He has, after all, adopted the mantra, "We can't wait [for Congress]!" And he boldly declared, in mid-January, that he has a "pen" and a "phone," with which he may go around Congress. As for the House's 40-plus attempts to repeal ObamaCare, I simply do not see why this might be considered incompatible with the desire to delay the employer mandate in a way that does not grant imperial power to the president. Most Republicans (myself included) would (1) prefer the abolition of ObamaCare; but (2) failing that, would like, at least, to see the employer mandate delayed--preferably, in the usual manner. On another subject, you are certainly correct that states may not "legally" issue their own currency. The state of Virginia, however, was considering the unapologetic defiance of federal law in this regard, regardless of the potential upshot. I do not know, however, if this is still under active consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 18, 2014 16:42:11 GMT
The rich prefer the poor to die to paying any money to those they have robbed, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 19, 2014 10:57:05 GMT
I cannot imagine why you would not be sure if President Obama is trying to circumvent Congress. He has, after all, adopted the mantra, "We can't wait [for Congress]!" And he boldly declared, in mid-January, that he has a "pen" and a "phone," with which he may go around Congress. As for the House's 40-plus attempts to repeal ObamaCare, I simply do not see why this might be considered incompatible with the desire to delay the employer mandate in a way that does not grant imperial power to the president. Most Republicans (myself included) would (1) prefer the abolition of ObamaCare; but (2) failing that, would like, at least, to see the employer mandate delayed--preferably, in the usual manner. On another subject, you are certainly correct that states may not "legally" issue their own currency. The state of Virginia, however, was considering the unapologetic defiance of federal law in this regard, regardless of the potential upshot. I do not know, however, if this is still under active consideration.
President Obama's statements notwithstanding he's still limited by the law and the extent of his executive powers and I've still not seen anything that he's done that is outside of presidential descretionary powers.
As I've mentioned I also have a problem with the delays in Employer Mandate as the penalities should not have been delayed at all. At the same time I've read of all the problems the federal government is having in establishing the rules and regulations for business that rationalize the delays. Much of the delay has been blamed on the lawsuit against Obamacare because the federal government really couldn't act until the Supreme Court decided the case of Constitutionality and that wasn't resolved until 2012. I don't even like how the Employer Mandate was crafted as it should have covered all employers and all employees in a completely different manner and I've offered suggestions on that before.
With all of that said President Obama isn't doing anything really unusual for a president and certainly isn't being imperialistic by any means. Those claims are purely partisan rhetoric. What he has faced is the most obstructionist political opposition in Congress that I've ever seen in my lifetime. The House has been the Nancy Reagan branch of Congress with a "just say no" stance on virtually every issue. No immigration reform, no tax reform, no fixes for the numerous problems with Obamacare. The House has been the most negative legislative body I've ever witnessed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 19, 2014 16:49:18 GMT
I cannot imagine why you would not be sure if President Obama is trying to circumvent Congress. He has, after all, adopted the mantra, "We can't wait [for Congress]!" And he boldly declared, in mid-January, that he has a "pen" and a "phone," with which he may go around Congress. As for the House's 40-plus attempts to repeal ObamaCare, I simply do not see why this might be considered incompatible with the desire to delay the employer mandate in a way that does not grant imperial power to the president. Most Republicans (myself included) would (1) prefer the abolition of ObamaCare; but (2) failing that, would like, at least, to see the employer mandate delayed--preferably, in the usual manner. On another subject, you are certainly correct that states may not "legally" issue their own currency. The state of Virginia, however, was considering the unapologetic defiance of federal law in this regard, regardless of the potential upshot. I do not know, however, if this is still under active consideration.
President Obama's statements notwithstanding he's still limited by the law and the extent of his executive powers and I've still not seen anything that he's done that is outside of presidential descretionary powers.
As I've mentioned I also have a problem with the delays in Employer Mandate as the penalities should not have been delayed at all. At the same time I've read of all the problems the federal government is having in establishing the rules and regulations for business that rationalize the delays. Much of the delay has been blamed on the lawsuit against Obamacare because the federal government really couldn't act until the Supreme Court decided the case of Constitutionality and that wasn't resolved until 2012. I don't even like how the Employer Mandate was crafted as it should have covered all employers and all employees in a completely different manner and I've offered suggestions on that before.
With all of that said President Obama isn't doing anything really unusual for a president and certainly isn't being imperialistic by any means. Those claims are purely partisan rhetoric. What he has faced is the most obstructionist political opposition in Congress that I've ever seen in my lifetime. The House has been the Nancy Reagan branch of Congress with a "just say no" stance on virtually every issue. No immigration reform, no tax reform, no fixes for the numerous problems with Obamacare. The House has been the most negative legislative body I've ever witnessed.
Your observation that President Obama "certainly isn't being imperialistic by any means" is...well, downright jaw-dropping. Even Richard Nixon (for whom I never had any great affection) was far less imperialistic than Barack Obama is. As for the House, it is clear to me that its desire to delay immigration reform until next year is due to the fact that it does not wish to anger any part of its base in an election year. Presumably, it will deal with the matter next year. I am unsure what sort of tax reform has been proposed by Democratic lawmakers, that has (supposedly) been obstructed by the GOP. As for "fixes" to ObamaCare, I would much prefer that we elect a Republican-controlled Senate in November, and a Republican president two years thereafter, and simply repeal the entire bill; and then replace it with something much better. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 20, 2014 9:53:33 GMT
Your observation that President Obama "certainly isn't being imperialistic by any means" is...well, downright jaw-dropping. Even Richard Nixon (for whom I never had any great affection) was far less imperialistic than Barack Obama is. As for the House, it is clear to me that its desire to delay immigration reform until next year is due to the fact that it does not wish to anger any part of its base in an election year. Presumably, it will deal with the matter next year. I am unsure what sort of tax reform has been proposed by Democratic lawmakers, that has (supposedly) been obstructed by the GOP. As for "fixes" to ObamaCare, I would much prefer that we elect a Republican-controlled Senate in November, and a Republican president two years thereafter, and simply repeal the entire bill; and then replace it with something much better.
Perhaps, and clarify me if I'm wrong, the greatest complaint Republicans have related to President Obama's executive orders are those dealing with Obamacare. From my perspectived most if not all of these are due to the delays caused by the Republican lawsuit that wasn't settled by the Supreme Court until 2012. Basically all regulatory requirements had to be put off by the adminstration pending the outcome of that lawsuit as they had no idea how the Supreme Court would respond. So instead of having five years to create the necessary regulations (i.e. 2009-2013) the adminstration had only one year. Additional problems were even created by the Supreme Court decision where states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion leaving five million people that weren't provided for by law as well as the fact that many insurance companies decided to pull out of markets for business reasons. It was really complex and there are numerous reasons behind the delays in implementation of course and while I don't like the overall law I can understand the reasons for the delays. It didn't help that far too many (Republican) states also refused to set-up their own state insurance exchanges creating more of a burden on the federal government. As I've noted I don't agree with all of the executive orders related to Obamacare but I can certainly see the rational behind them and find them to be within the discretionary authority of a president.
A minor issue was the delayed prosecution of immigrant children that grew up in the United States so that the INS could focus on "criminal" aliens (i.e. illegal immigrants that committed felonies) but that was almost universally supported by both liberal and conservtive groups as being the right thing to do. I agree with that decision. At the same time border enforcement is the best it's ever been. I recall from a recent news story that the border patrol has stopped about 500,000 people trying to enter the country illegally across the border last year which is an excellent record.
With this said I'm not looking at whether I agree with the executive orders but instead merely look at them as to whether there was a rational basis for them and is there prior precedent based upon similar executive orders in the past.
As for immigration reform I'd ask why the Republican controlled House didn't address it in 2013? That wasn't an election year. I don't have any hopes that the Republicans will address it next year either. I've heard many Republicans state that they don't want to make the same mistake that Reagan did with immigration reform and the only mistake Reagan made was to retain a quota system. As long as we have a quota we're going to have illegal immigration especially when the quota is focused on keeping Hispanics out of the country. Excluding Canada and the US all of the North American nations, where most immigrants come from, are Hispanic.
While I don't believe that Democrats have been very good at addressing federal taxation their general issue is that the tax burden relative to income is highest on low income workers and lowest on high income investors. They refer to this as unfair taxation and it is unfair taxation. The tax burden on high income investors needs to be increased while the tax burden on low income workers needs to be reduced. Republicans in the House refuse to increase the tax burden on high income investors that currently have the lowest tax burden in America related to income. Personally I believe that my proposal for federal taxation is the best I've seen proposed by anyone because it addresses this very issue while also balancing the federal budget in it's very first year.
I've been following the various projections on the 2014 Senate races and it is probaby a better than 50:50 chance that Republicans will secure more than 50 seats but the probability of securing 60 seats is virtually nil. As for the 2016 presidential race it's shaping up to be the worst choice for America in my lifetime. Hillary Clinton would be the worst possible choice for American that the Democrats could put forward and someone like Rand Paul or, worse still, Ted Cruz would be worse than Hillary Clinton.
Need I remind you that the legislation passed when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House in 2009 was perhaps the worst in US history and to simply change the tables and give Republicans this same control would also be the worst possible case for the United States. Allowing either party to have complete control always results in bad things for Americans.
BTW I've read that over 5 million people now have health insurance because of Obamacare and it cannot be repealed. The Repeal and Replace proposal by Republicans is not going to happen because they still don't have any proposal to replace it. It's been five years already since Obamacare was passed and Republicans have failed to put forward even one comprehensive proposal to replace it.
www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-18/republicans-don-t-replace-obamacare-again?cmpid=yhoo
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 20, 2014 19:01:57 GMT
When it comes to executive orders here is where I have the greatest problem. It would relate to former President Bush who's executive orders violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution as well has his creation of the GITMO prison facilities in direct violation of the Cuban-American treaty that specifically limited the use of GITMO to a naval refueling station.
Of course I also find President Obama complicit in not repealing several of the Bush executive orders such as the one that allowed the massive domestic spying on the American People by the NSA, not closing the GITMO prison facilities, and continuing the use of extrajudical executions (murder under US law) where I don't know which president initially authorized this by executive order. |
|
