A question for the Obama apologists

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas.

Oh? I never heard that before. Something new . . . or something you have observed by your more realistic understanding of contexts? I double checked the official guide on how and for what Congress people act--the Constitution. It lists 18 things in which Congress has the responsibility to act. None of the 18 says that members are to be concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. Each of the 18 are enumerated as duties not agendas. And they are very specific, not encumbered by conflicting or various "sides."

This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President,

The House behavior to which you refer was about the funding of a law which was imperfectly written, and which itself has been an "agenda" of progressives for a century. An agenda that is not listed as one of the 18 ways on which Congress is supposed to act. And, yes, Congress can override Supreme Court decisions. It is actually the final arbiter of what is federal law, not the SCOTUS.

I understand, however, that you have no truck with such notions. The Constitution, for you, is an outdated document which was written in a different context than that in which we currently live. High sounding concepts such as liberty, especially individual liberty, no longer apply. We are all totally interdependent in such a way that individualism is an obstacle to efficient social order and good governance thereof. And it is through government, highly centralized and staffed with expert bureaucrats, that we must achieve what is good for all.

The "perception" that a Cruze could be acting honorably to perform his Constitutional duty to country and constituents is probably for you, naïve. Your reading of the relevant context, with its variables and relative agendas, is that what he is doing is only for a run at the presidency.

House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Actually, the Tea Party has felt that it has been back stabbed by Republicans whom they helped to victory, and who have abandoned promises that helped them get elected. Any new candidates the Tea Party runs to replace back stabbing Congress people will be to right the ship.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

Yes, yes, the "perspective" thing. I know, I know, the official guide to what the POTUS's perspective should be is irrelevant. That perspective is much narrower than what modern presidents must have. They are responsible for so much more, just about everything, so that one person couldn't actually handle it and do it well--that jack of all trades but master of none syndrome. So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Really?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

[FormerUser]

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

"Doomsday mission"? Are you reneging on your devotion to "perspectives"? Cruz has a broader perspective than "Republican after Republican" who want to end the budget impasse. What budget? The continuing resolution is a means to AVOID a budget. Raising the debt ceiling is a means to spend, again, even more money than the government has.

And Obamacare does the same. And it is not popular or desired by a majority of citizens.

Anonymous quotes to the contrary, the mess republicans are in is the mess that everybody is in, and that mess includes obamacare, which Republicans didn't vote for. It is not Republicans who have not passed budgets, it is not Republicans who passed Obamacare, but it is Republicans who have also contributed to the debt and also maintained business as usual for the Federal Gvt.

Who cares if they believe they'll get blamed for it all. Most people, including me, don't give a rat's behind if they do. What tea partiers and constitutionalists care about is getting rid of debt, getting rid of oppressive tyrannical mandates (including Obamacare), restoring principled constitutional gvt. and making this, again, a country of free, responsible people, not a populace who must depend on government bureaucracy to sustain their lives.

Cruz's broader "perspective" includes all of that. I have heard him speak on talk shows and he says a lot more than is represented in the article you cite. And the perspective from which he speaks is not a "doomsday mission," but a restoration to sanity and a brighter, once again flourishing nation of individuals who can innovate and produce far more than herds and groups who are all prodded into one way by centralized regulations.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

As for Obamacare and should it be repealed, read from the same issue of Politico that you cite this article by one of the progressive's favorite billionaires, Warren Buffet: http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/o...e=t-oc-buffett

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1016210]I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence[/
Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

Your drive-by opinion needs some proof or evidence other than your "perception."

Is ego not a portion of courage? Most of the "great" men of history would be perceived as being driven by ego. Are you implying that ego is bad? Perhaps you perceive that your opinions or actions are devoid of ego. Perhaps your own arrogance blinds you to those perceptions and opinions of others as if what you propose without some proofs is obviously true. That is ego and arrogance of a high order.

And "political anarchy"? What we have now is an anarchy. Our government does not operate by consistent principles, and it has abandoned the constitutional structure which provided those principles. A structure which provided the rule of law rather than rule by men. Rule by men rather than law is anarchy. What Cruz is attempting is a restoration of principles that promote individual freedom and the rule of law, not anarchy. See this article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Public opinion can be a useful guide in deciding legislation, but only if it is informed by principle and truth, not misguided by spin and lies. Cruz's behavior is backed by principal and constitutional order. If that makes him an attractive candidate for President, I say hooray!

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

Yes, by definition, it gives you more to spend. And the U.S. Gvt. takes in monthly enough to pay current bills. But the constant expansion of government has constantly required more money. And the need to abandon budgets and the borrowing of more money. And the debt that has been accrued by constantly borrowing has become impossible to pay unless the borrowing stops.

And your perception of Tea Party "threats" are perceived by them as means to fiscal and legislative sanity. If sanity is a threat, so be it. Wasn't the so-called government "shutdown" a threat to avoid any compromise?

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting that those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

-spence

Yeah, getting a larger line of credit does allow you to "spend" more money than you have on hand, and even more than a smaller line of credit would allow. And if you insist on the illogical reasoning that credit does not allow you to spend, but merely to pay bills, then explain what a bill is other than demand for payment for items on which you "spent." Of course, you have not really paid the bill, you've merely transferred the debt to a lender, presumably, if you're honorable and solvent, to repay the lender at a later time with actual income. That is, you will actually "spend" real money to pay for the borrowed debt which was used for spending on actual goods. So borrowing is a pseudo-method of spending and paying off the debt compounds the spending. And larger lines of credit will allow you to "spend" more money. Of course, if you constantly depend on this circuitous method of spending well beyond any means of income, and resort to more spending to pay-off previous spending as well as new spending, you would not be a reputable spender. And you will be in constant need of larger lines of credit.

As for spending declining faster than anticipated now, think SEQUESTER! Oh yeah, those dreadful cuts that were supposed to result in disastrous blows to our economy and to the help we all needed from the Federal Gvt. Well, now the results of the sequester are being applauded for the wonder of declining spending. Go figure. Strange also, how we need to raise the debt ceiling as spending is declining. Apparently, it needs to decline more. But first we must, once again, be warned of the impending doom that will result with cuts in spending. (The real doom will be to the ruling class as we find that we can actually make do with less and less of its "help"--especially with less and less of the debt it imposes on us for its "help" that makes us helpless.)

Oh . . . and those long term strategies . . . for what? Strategies to reign in the powerhouse of American freedom and transform it into the chains of a ruling class?

Another article by Hayward re "default" and other absurdities:http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/14/d...lus-plan-ever/

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps your drive by pot shots aren't conducive towards thinking.

-spence