Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by
08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:12:26 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. THe 14th simply says that the bond holders have to be paid. It doesn't say that anyone else does. Obama will not allow default to happen. There need be no default. If there is, it's *purely* Obama's choice. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Lew Hodgett wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State." Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true, irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise perfectly good claims and agnedas. Deb |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
"Dr. Deb" wrote in
: Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State." Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true, irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise perfectly good claims and agnedas. Deb I'm a proud liberal, though a fiscal conservative. I believe in a balanced budget, but also in deficit spending in times of need for such. I do NOT believe there will be a default. The idiots in Congress WILL get to a last minute compromise. Until now everyone in Congress and the administration (pfft on you too) has just been posturing (hey, they are politicians!). The idiot TP members (what else does TP stand for besides Tea Party?) may not understand compromise, but that'll make them excellent 1-term people makinf a point. The idiot free-spenders will get their one-comeuppance (sp?) too. Someone will finally notice that we have a simple choice. Generate jobs (=spending which=inflation) or unemployment (=depression). The alternative is to also generate revenue. I'm a biochemist (retired), not an economist, but then I'll pay any single one economist a grand prize of $2.== for finding the solution ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Oh there will be a resolution, all of those critters up there is Washington know full well that if they don't come up with a plan or agreement that it will be political suicide for them all regardless of which party held out. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 12:12 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Why should he do any different than in the past when the government was shut down for several days because the party in power failed to do their job and did not properly manage the budget and caused a need to raise the budget limit. His disapproval rating 4% than his approval rating (Real Clear politics Poll which is a composite of about 8 other polls.) Most of the country disagrees with his policies. Is there any wonder why he is against the short term solution that would bring his 40% (about 50% in a year) increase in the national debt before the public just before the election. |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. There will be NO "default" regardless of what Obama, congress, et al says/does and despite what the rating agencies may proffer (which is strictly opinion with no legal weight), all this is strictly political theater. The reality is that you are being strummed like an out of tune guitar ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Dr. Deb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State." Interestingly, the Constitution is much like the Bible. It doesn't mattery what it SAYS; the only thing that counts is what it MEANS. In the non-Catholic tradition, interpretation of scripture is left up to the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants carry over that technique to the reading of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is more like the Catholic methodology: It is the Supreme Court (Holy See) that is charged with deciding what is meant, not the individual in the pew. That said, should Obama invoke some evanescent power via the 14th Amendment, a couple of extreme things will result: a) An immediate appeal will be taken to a federal court, who will be completely flummoxed since the judiciary REALLY does not like to meddle in the operation of another branch, and/or b) Somebody will introduce an impeachment motion in the House that will NOT be dismissed out of hand. I can see it now: The military, getting no paychecks, march on Washington much like the Bonus Army of 1932 except there will be no Douglas McArthur to confront them with tanks and bayonets. Instead of having their wives and children along, granny ladies without Social Security checks will be carrying the pitchforks and the poor who can't get Medicaid will be carrying the torches. The SEIU will provide the T-shirts and the AFGE will provide cold drinks. Finally, we will be living in interesting times. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 8:36 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Dr. Deb wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State." Interestingly, the Constitution is much like the Bible. It doesn't mattery what it SAYS; the only thing that counts is what it MEANS. In the non-Catholic tradition, interpretation of scripture is left up to the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants carry over that technique to the reading of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is more like the Catholic methodology: It is the Supreme Court (Holy See) that is charged with deciding what is meant, not the individual in the pew. That said, should Obama invoke some evanescent power via the 14th Amendment, a couple of extreme things will result: a) An immediate appeal will be taken to a federal court, who will be completely flummoxed since the judiciary REALLY does not like to meddle in the operation of another branch, and/or b) Somebody will introduce an impeachment motion in the House that will NOT be dismissed out of hand. I can see it now: The military, getting no paychecks, march on Washington much like the Bonus Army of 1932 except there will be no Douglas McArthur to confront them with tanks and bayonets. Instead of having their wives and children along, granny ladies without Social Security checks will be carrying the pitchforks and the poor who can't get Medicaid will be carrying the torches. The SEIU will provide the T-shirts and the AFGE will provide cold drinks. Finally, we will be living in interesting times. Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be. |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
In other words, meaning lies within the perview of the reader and not the author. Interesting. So what you are advocating is a rebellion with the military marching on Washington. That could get you charged with sedition, which is a somewhat serious thing, in case you did not know. Before you respond, I was not serious in the above. I was merely using your hermeneutical prinicple. Its amazing how quickly liberal politics, theology and philosophy are abandonded when those prinicples are brought to bear on us and our posiitons by our opponent. :-) Deb HeyBub wrote: Dr. Deb wrote: Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. Its kinda like the phrase that is supposed to be in the First Amendment, but isn;t. You know, "Seperation of Church and State." Interestingly, the Constitution is much like the Bible. It doesn't mattery what it SAYS; the only thing that counts is what it MEANS. In the non-Catholic tradition, interpretation of scripture is left up to the individual, guided by the Holy Spirit. Many Protestants carry over that technique to the reading of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution is more like the Catholic methodology: It is the Supreme Court (Holy See) that is charged with deciding what is meant, not the individual in the pew. That said, should Obama invoke some evanescent power via the 14th Amendment, a couple of extreme things will result: a) An immediate appeal will be taken to a federal court, who will be completely flummoxed since the judiciary REALLY does not like to meddle in the operation of another branch, and/or b) Somebody will introduce an impeachment motion in the House that will NOT be dismissed out of hand. I can see it now: The military, getting no paychecks, march on Washington much like the Bonus Army of 1932 except there will be no Douglas McArthur to confront them with tanks and bayonets. Instead of having their wives and children along, granny ladies without Social Security checks will be carrying the pitchforks and the poor who can't get Medicaid will be carrying the torches. The SEIU will provide the T-shirts and the AFGE will provide cold drinks. Finally, we will be living in interesting times. |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On Jul 28, 11:12*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew I would like to think so. However, other than a TV slot the other night, he has been pretty much an active non-participant so far. RonB |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On Jul 28, 11:12*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew Here's some predictions: 1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side will be wrong. 2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot, he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding issues. 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy. 4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the debate. D'ohBoy |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message eb.com... The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew I added this to a letter to our "leaders": Any responsible citizen must have a budget, stick to that budget or face the fallout... If I live beyond my means (as the government and many people have done) my credit rating will plummet, and rightfully so. To repair it I must pay down my debt, stop borrowing additionally and force myself to live within my means. If I do not, only bankruptcy can "save" me, but I don't believe our Nation has that fallback. I am disappointed in the members of the Republican Party that abandoned "Cut, Cap and Balance Plan" As to extending the Ceiling date beyond 2012, why should we... it is unpleasant business to be sure, but let's get it dealt with sooner rather than later. Salary of the US President ...................$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0€‹00 Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400 Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000 Let the above be put into the Social Security for retirement, and under the VA for medical insurance. And who else in the work force can give themselves raises? I think we found where some of the cuts should be made ! Ben Franklin warned that if we let being a Legislator become a profitable position, we soon would have only profiteers filling the seats... seems like he hit it on the head! |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 8:59 AM, SconnieRoadie wrote:
Here's some predictions: 1. This crisis will serve only to further polarize and alienate the adherents of the two political parties. Calculus on both sides suggests this is the path they must tread to be re-elected. One side will be wrong. 2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot, he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding issues. 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy. 4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the debate. D'ohBoy That that is an entirely likely scenario, considering the efforts at "divisiveness", I could not agree more! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 4/15/2010 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
SconnieRoadie wrote:
3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy. Nothing alarming about that prediction. For several years now we have been overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by our historical success as a nation. These are the voices who have advocated that we should pay the same for a gallon of gas as they do in the UK, who are somehow shamed by the fact that we don't, who feel we must apologize for our success, and in fact, regress to the levels of the rest of the world. They are the ones who feel that just because the rest of the world either resented, or envied our success, we should throw it all away. 4. Idiots will continue to come out of the woodwork and poison the debate. As is the nature of politics... -- -Mike- |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Tom B wrote:
Salary of the US President ...................$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0?00 Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400 Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000 I'm a fiscal conservative, and a capitalist at the same time - not that those are opposing philosophies. That said, I don't find those salaries to be so out of line. Think about what you think you are worth. Then compare that to the responsibilities of the positions you list above. If you had to carry the weight of those positions, I'm sure you would consider your worth to be more than a simple charitable offering. What I think is more absurd is the way that Congress votes themselves such things as preferred healthcare priviledges that are not available to the average American. Likewise, when cost of living increases for Social Security are insulting, yet Congress votes themselves a much more attractive increase package. Personally, I'm more upset about who is entitled to Social Security, than I am about the salaries of the leaders of our country. I have a brother who became disabled and his two sons immediately became eligible for Social Security. Why? What had they done to earn that? What makes his situation different from the guy on the street who lost a good paying job and had to settle for one paying a fraction of what he was used to earning? On top of that, there is the whole matter of using Social Security funds for those that are not even citizens... -- -Mike- |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 10:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom B wrote: Salary of the US President ...................$400,000 Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 Salary of House/Senate ........................$174,0?00 Salary of Speaker of the House ..............$223,500 Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ........ .$193,400 Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ..$38,000 I'm a fiscal conservative, and a capitalist at the same time - not that those are opposing philosophies. That said, I don't find those salaries to be so out of line. Think about what you think you are worth. Then compare that to the responsibilities of the positions you list above. If you had to carry the weight of those positions, I'm sure you would consider your worth to be more than a simple charitable offering. What cracks me up is when people compare the average salary of our congressmen to that of the average insert downtrodden member of society here and, noting the "huge" disparity, conclude that "I think we know where the problem lies!" As if adjusting the salaries of a few hundred congressmen is somehow going to reclaim enough taxpayer money to fix our economy... The amount of taxpayer money recovered by making their salaries "fair" would be a drop in the ocean compared to where they're spending the rest of it. -- "Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day." (From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago) To reply, eat the taco. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/ |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment does not permit the President to do that: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, shall not be questioned ... [emphasis mine]" -- the point being that any debt above the current ceiling is NOT "authorized by law". Obama will not allow default to happen. If Congress fails to act, he has no choice. |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 7:22 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/28/2011 11:12 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. There will be NO "default" regardless of what Obama, congress, et al says/does and despite what the rating agencies may proffer (which is strictly opinion with no legal weight), all this is strictly political theater. The reality is that you are being strummed like an out of tune guitar ... Exactly, they will simply print more money and water down the dollar even more. |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 10:10 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
SconnieRoadie wrote: 3. The US will continue to decline into second-class nationhood due to our inability to act with a consistent reasoned long-term strategy. Nothing alarming about that prediction. For several years now we have been overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by our historical success as a nation. These are the voices who have advocated that we should pay the same for a gallon of gas as they do in the UK, who are somehow shamed by the fact that we don't, who feel we must apologize for our success, and in fact, regress to the levels of the rest of the world. They are the ones who feel that just because the rest of the world either resented, or envied our success, we should throw it all away. And unfortunately as we stoop and pay more for our accomplishments the world hates more. |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
"Dr. Deb" wrote in message ... Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true, irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise perfectly good claims and agnedas. Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money? "I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine The man of whom it was said (by John Adams), "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain." |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
"k-nuttle" wrote in message ... Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be. Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea that Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the U.S. so he could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power indefinitely so among other things he could attack Iran. And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and become dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when considering left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is "wingnut". |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
"Dr. Deb" wrote in message ... Before you respond, I was not serious in the above. I was merely using your hermeneutical prinicple. Its amazing how quickly liberal politics, theology and philosophy are abandonded when those prinicples are brought to bear on us and our posiitons by our opponent. :-) LOL, did you just accuse HeyBug of being a liberal? This should be fun. |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
|
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... For several years now we have been overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by our historical success as a nation. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with American politics today. It is no longer enough to claim the other side is wrong, they have to be wicked as well and actively working to damage the nation and harm its people. Is it any wonder compromise fails when politics is practiced in a manner that requires painting the other side as heretics? |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
DGDevin wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message ... Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be. Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea that Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the U.S. so he could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power indefinitely so among other things he could attack Iran. And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and become dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when considering left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is "wingnut". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where anyone suggested that Obama's motive was to become dictator for life. Perhaps you could refresh me... -- -Mike- |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
DGDevin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message ... For several years now we have been overridden with people - Obama representing them well, who are embarassed by our historical success as a nation. This goes to the heart of what is wrong with American politics today. It is no longer enough to claim the other side is wrong, they have to be wicked as well and actively working to damage the nation and harm its people. Is it any wonder compromise fails when politics is practiced in a manner that requires painting the other side as heretics? Well - in a controversial world, it has always been that way. The problem is that we are now inundated with too many idiots who feel a false sense of obligation and remorse for the very things that have made this nation great. For some reason they feel it is wrong to work hard and be successful - wrong to be the unique model for how good things could be for those living under worse conditions. -- -Mike- |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On 7/29/2011 8:08 AM, Tom B wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message eb.com... The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Do you mean the term that says, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"? I wasn't aware that "Congress" means "the President." Obama will not allow default to happen. Then he'd better resign himself to not vetoing Congress's bill, as he's threatened to do. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:44:07 -0500, Dr. Deb wrote:
Except for the minor fact that the 14th Amendment does not allow him to do that. You really need to read it "all" for yourself, rather than just taking someone's word for it. When has the Constitution prevented any president from doing what he wanted? My personal memory goes back to when Truman nationalized the railroads. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:09:31 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where anyone suggested that Obama's motive was to become dictator for life. Perhaps you could refresh me... "Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be." posted by k-nuttle -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:53:13 -0700, DGDevin wrote:
Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money? Just in case anyone took that statement seriously, it was the Eisenhower administration who made it the official motto and had it added to paper money. In 1956. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
On Jul 29, 12:12*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew I shouldn't do this but..... I happened to find a link that shows the breakdown of the federal Budget proposal for 2012. It doesn’t go deep enough and I need to look at things on a higher level than I wanted but it gave me enough insight that I wanted to puke. After I read this, I have been thinking about these things and mo 1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget. It is over $650 BILLION!! We are in far too many places where we shouldn’t be— and I don’t mean in Iraq or Libya or places like that either. I mean places like Japan and Poland. Screw that! Why do we need to be in those places?! That smacks of Imperialism and we moan about China being that way. If we close shop, we can reduce our military budget a TON without sacrificing bullets and tanks for our soldiers. Heck, I say let Japan rearm itself. That would take away a huge expenditure away from us AND it would make China and North Korea sit up and pay attention because they are both afraid of the Japanese. 2. We need to quit giving money to the IMF. We need to quit giving money to Pakistan. We need to quit giving money to India, to Iceland, to everybody!!! Unless there is a natural disaster of some sort, stop… even if there IS a natural disaster. We gave tons of money to Haiti after what happened to them but, did you know, Americans donated much, much more money than our Federal Government ever sent, so why use our tax money? 3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. Why should Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for Medicare? He shouldn’t and the same goes for many, many people. At the same time, there are FAR too many people abusing the system. There are literally generations of people in the same family who have never had a paying job—they have lived off the rest of us. I say stop it. No more. My plan is not to pull the rug out from underneath them because you would literally have violence. It needs to be a phased approach and we would have to kick up the giving before we take it away. My plan would be to train these people in whatever they want. If they want to be a plumber, go for it. If they want to be an accountant, go at it. If they want to be a hairdresser, so be it. We will pay them to go to a trade school or college or whatever. We will help them with child care and medical and living expenses until they get their degree or certificate. We will buy them clothes to wear on interviews and even give them low interest loans to open a business. We will train them on how to take interviews. We will do whatever…but there WILL be an end to it. I say 6-12 months after “graduation,” they will be knocked off the public relief roles. There is nothing like an empty stomach that will make somebody work. 4. States should start paying their Federal representatives. Why should a State with a small population like Rhode Island or Montana have to pay equally for the paychecks to all 535 members in Washington? Why should their tax dollars need to kick in to pay for representatives from California and New York and Texas?? That is not fair. And, even more, every State should be allowed to PAY their representatives what they want—not a standard pay for all of them. I'm dead! |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
DGDevin wrote:
"k-nuttle" wrote in message ... Then obama declares a state of emergency, declares martial law and becomes the dictator for life as he would like to be. Late in Bush's second term some left-wingnuts were pushing the idea that Bush was planning to stage a false-flag terrorist attack on the U.S. so he could suspend the 2008 election and hold onto power indefinitely so among other things he could attack Iran. And now we have you claiming Obama wants to declare martial law and become dictator for life, proof (if any were needed) that when considering left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts, the operative word is "wingnut". A right-wing president becoming president for life is more likely to succeed than a left-wing president, but less likely to happen. If it DID happen we right-wingers could sustain the coup because we have most of the guns. On the other hand, right wingers just don't do force and intimidation very well. Here's an example: Instead of McCain, many of us were rooting for Jeb Bush. After him, that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew for eight years. By then the legacy would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to a monarchy. But you'll note, we tried to work within the system. Oh well. |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Dr. Deb wrote:
In other words, meaning lies within the perview of the reader and not the author. Interesting. So what you are advocating is a rebellion with the military marching on Washington. That could get you charged with sedition, which is a somewhat serious thing, in case you did not know. Before you respond, I was not serious in the above. I was merely using your hermeneutical prinicple. Its amazing how quickly liberal politics, theology and philosophy are abandonded when those prinicples are brought to bear on us and our posiitons by our opponent. :-) No, you were misinterpreting. Nowhere did I advocate marching on Washington, violence, or tormenting cats. That's your own reading. And far from hermeneutical principles being abandoned, I was applying them to the situation at hand. Hermeneutics and the Theory of Law have much in common, so it's fairly straightforward to use the tools of one to make sense of the other. |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
DGDevin wrote:
"Dr. Deb" wrote in message ... Liberals keep makings claims, which for a liberal makes it true, irrespective of reality. Of course, if you are a liberal you really don't like dealing with that nasty subject anyway, because it messes up otherwise perfectly good claims and agnedas. Yeah, you tell 'em, if the Founders really wanted separation of church and state then why did they put "In God We Trust" on the money? Actually, the founding fathers said, in the 1st Amendment, that the FEDERAL government should stay out of the religion business; states were free to have their own state church (which several, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, did). It wasn't until 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education) that the 1st Amendment's clause on religion became binding on the individual states. |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Leon wrote:
Exactly, they will simply print more money and water down the dollar even more. Can't do that. The government doesn't print money (well, it does, but under contract to the Federal Reserve). But what the government CAN do is mint coins. By executive fiat, the government could design and create a, say, $100 coin (made out of pure aluminum) and monetize the debt with billions of dollars worth of soda cans. |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
SconnieRoadie wrote:
2. There will be a viable third party candidate in 012. Like Perot, he or she will not win, despite offering a valid, unbeholden to historic promises approach to solving our current and longstanding issues. There is no such thing as a "viable" third-party candidate. The closest we've ever come to that was when Teddy Roosevelt ran as the "Bull Moose" candidate. His candidacy cost Howard Taft the election and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson (arguably the most venal president we've EVER had). Third party candidates take votes away from the major party candidate to which they are closest. If Al Gore decides to run as a 3rd party candidate, he'll take votes away from Obama. If Ron Paul decides to run, he'll take votes from Rick Perry. What would be fun is if BOTH Gore and Paul decided to run! |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
Another online chain letter?
You USanians are suckers for anything and everything. --------------- "Lew Hodgett" wrote in message eb.com... The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
O/T: A Prognostication
busbus wrote:
On Jul 29, 12:12 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011. As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment. Obama will not allow default to happen. Lew I shouldn't do this but..... I happened to find a link that shows the breakdown of the federal Budget proposal for 2012. It doesn’t go deep enough and I need to look at things on a higher level than I wanted but it gave me enough insight that I wanted to puke. After I read this, I have been thinking about these things and mo 1. The first place we need to cut is our defense budget. It is over $650 BILLION!! We are in far too many places where we shouldn’t be— and I don’t mean in Iraq or Libya or places like that either. I mean places like Japan and Poland. Screw that! Why do we need to be in those places?! That smacks of Imperialism and we moan about China being that way. If we close shop, we can reduce our military budget a TON without sacrificing bullets and tanks for our soldiers. Heck, I say let Japan rearm itself. That would take away a huge expenditure away from us AND it would make China and North Korea sit up and pay attention because they are both afraid of the Japanese. The United States maintains a military presence in over 180 countries (and I'm not talking about Marine guards at the embassies). Certainly the larger ones (Japan, Germany, UK0 could be reduced or eliminated. 2. We need to quit giving money to the IMF. We need to quit giving money to Pakistan. We need to quit giving money to India, to Iceland, to everybody!!! Unless there is a natural disaster of some sort, stop… even if there IS a natural disaster. We gave tons of money to Haiti after what happened to them but, did you know, Americans donated much, much more money than our Federal Government ever sent, so why use our tax money? We don't give money to anybody. We give credits they can use to buy U.S. stuff, such as military equipment or wheat. 3. We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. Why should Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for Medicare? Because he paid into the Social Security system for most of his life. We call it "Social Security," but the program's real name is " Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (OASDI) program. Note the word "insurance." No other insurance vehicle determines claim amounts based on how much you make. My plan would be to train these people in whatever they want. If they want to be a plumber, go for it. If they want to be an accountant, go at it. If they want to be a hairdresser, so be it. We will pay them to go to a trade school or college or whatever. We will help them with child care and medical and living expenses until they get their degree or certificate. We will buy them clothes to wear on interviews and even give them low interest loans to open a business. We will train them on how to take interviews. We will do whatever…but there WILL be an end to it. I say 6-12 months after “graduation,” they will be knocked off the public relief roles. There is nothing like an empty stomach that will make somebody work. Good idea. Maimonides listed thirteen levels of charity. The worst was publicly and officiously giving a poor person money. The best kind of charity? Loaning someone sufficient funds for him to start a business. 4. States should start paying their Federal representatives. Why should a State with a small population like Rhode Island or Montana have to pay equally for the paychecks to all 535 members in Washington? Why should their tax dollars need to kick in to pay for representatives from California and New York and Texas?? That is not fair. And, even more, every State should be allowed to PAY their representatives what they want—not a standard pay for all of them. Ooo! I LIKE that idea! |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Prognostication
"HeyBub" wrote in
m: Instead of McCain, many of us were rooting for Jeb Bush. After him, that good-looking Hispanic Bush nephew for eight years. By then the legacy would be firmly established and it would be only a small step to a monarchy. But you'll note, we tried to work within the system. At first, I could have voted for McCain (would have been unlikely, but it seemed possible). Then he went of the deep end in his opinions, and tried to cover that up with a cover girl. Sorry, Twitsie did him in for good. And that is my opinion, YOU know the facts ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|