1. You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by RxCowboy, Jun 16, 2012.

  1. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT
    Yeah your right this does not have bias.

    "Do people seriously listen to this stuff? I hope this was posted as a demonstration to the ignorance of the author."
  2. PlatypusJojo

    A/V Subscriber PlatypusJojo Mysterious as the dark side of the moon

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    9,101
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Lincoln should have been too.
    zachya likes this.
  3. PlatypusJojo

    A/V Subscriber PlatypusJojo Mysterious as the dark side of the moon

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    9,101
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    What does bias have to do with this? Everything in this forum is biased somehow.
    Hbuchanan likes this.
  4. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT
    from the aforementioned forshizzle: Ksupoke, if you read into my post that I think you should think it is okay because Bush did it, you should learn to read without the bias.
  5. PlatypusJojo

    A/V Subscriber PlatypusJojo Mysterious as the dark side of the moon

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    9,101
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    Ah gotcha. So he brought it into this. My bad. :oops:
  6. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT
    To quote the vernacular of today, no prob:thumbup:
  7. forshizzle

    forshizzle Cowboy

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    105
    So you think I said what Obama is doing is okay because Bush did it? If that is what you read then again, you are reading with an idea in your head that you believe is there regardless of what people are actually saying. Your idea is biased. If that is not what you believe I said then you are not reading with bias, but that is exactly what you responded to me with in the first place. Anyone reading objectively would see I was pointing out that ALL presidents have done this, not just Bush. If all you see is the name Bush, then yes you are biased.
  8. panhandler62

    panhandler62 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    7,666
    Location:
    Martinsburg, WV
    At least he's not a Kardashian.
  9. panhandler62

    panhandler62 Cowboy

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    7,666
    Location:
    Martinsburg, WV
    You would never get an impeachment but it might be a rather solid talking point in the coming election.
    ksupoke and OSU Sig like this.
  10. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,145
    Location:
    Houston area
    Yeah, but these issues always pop up over some type of national emergency, war or other calamity. The government is all for it and the people as well. It's only after the fact, when the dust settles that folks get "up in arms" about possible constitutional violations. At least be consistent.

    As for the current illegal alien proclamation by Obama. Lets not forget the failed 1986 amnesty bill which:

    As for taxes and spending by our government......why would anyone think that if they agreed to tax increases there would be corresponding spending cuts? Example below.



    Two failed deals from the term of, arguably, one of the greatest Presidents the United States has ever seen.
  11. RxCowboy

    A/V Subscriber RxCowboy Has no Rx for his orange obsession.

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,738
    Location:
    Wishing I was in Stillwater
    Real tax increases now for promised spending cuts later never works. One congress cannot bind another.

    Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2
    ksupoke likes this.
  12. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT

    Posted now for I believe the 4th time.
    Reagan NEVER increased the marginal tax rate, it was materially less when he left office than when he took office and did not raise one time during his 8yrs in office. He closed loopholes on high income earners, he modified ss so that high income earners would pay more, he modified the tax law for small businesses so that they were taxed more as individuals ie could not hide as much from the gvt.
    Household income grew by $4k per yr during Reagan's tenure
    Household income dropped by $1500 yr after Reagan
    Did Reagan have flaws (yes) did he make mistakes (without a doubt)
    BUT
    He increased tax revenues WITHOUT increasing personal income tax rates.
  13. Cimarron

    Cimarron It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    41,504
    Exactly, it serves only to feed the machine. We have to stop feeding the machine.
    ksupoke likes this.
  14. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,145
    Location:
    Houston area
    OK, how about this, he rolled back some of the tax cuts the federal government enacted the previous year, in this act.
    It seems most people seem to think there was a $3 spending for $1 tax cut in this deal of which the spending cuts never came. I'd advise anyone interested to google it and see what they conclude.
  15. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT
    What I suspect you are referring to is TEFRA --

    TEFRA raised tax revenues in an attempt to repeal the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 which he also signed (these are the roll backs you correctly pointed out mainly in the areas of capital gains and interest income).

    During the Reagan administration, his reasoning for a tax increase was to make tax evaders pay rather than raise taxes on everyone at a time when worries over the deficit were very high and very real. The resulting tax revenue increase was approximately 0.78% of GDP, or $37 billion per year. This is why we there is a discussion about whether TEFRA was one of the country's largest tax increases, in pure numbers yes but the detail is much different, I don't have the figures but probably could find them but if I remember correctly the yr after tefra went into effect the amount of income tax paid by the 'hi income' went from 48% to 55% simply by closing loopholes which are too numerous to mention on this board and again if I recall the amount the lower income earners paid reduced from around 7.5% to 5.5% (don't quote me on these figures but I think they are close).

    Reagan stepped into the following:
    21.5% prime interest rate / within 2 yrs it had been cut in half
    double digit inflation / when he left it was under 3.5%
    unemployment at 7.5% when he left is was 5.4% or what is referred to now as full employment



    When Reagan left office the economy was growing at a rate of 4.1 percent -- compared to the average rates of 1.9 percent per year for Nixon, 2.1 for Carter, 2.3 for Eisenhower and 4.6 for Ford. Unemployment was listed as 5.5 percent. Employment growth was chugging along at around 2 percent per year and had been since 1985, which is about the same as it had been under Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. The unemployment rate in Reagan's last year in office averaged 5.5 percent, the same as it had been for Eisenhower in his last year -- 1960.

    Now for the bad:
    Reagan inherited a budget deficit that was 2.5 % of the economy, with an interest payment rate on the national debt at $67 billion. When he left office in 1989 the budget deficit had increased to almost 5 % of the economy, and budget deficits had contributed to a larger national debt. Interest payments on the national debt had increased to $170 billion. The national debt had been at 32.5 percent of GDP when he took office -- the lowest since World War II. It was at 43.8 percent when he left.

    In an interview with the writer Lou Cannon in 2001, Reagan said that this was the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.
  16. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,145
    Location:
    Houston area
    KSU, the point of this exercise is to explain a larger point which is this. When liberals use talking points like "those conservative candidates wouldn't even agree to $10 of spending cuts for every $1 in increased revenues"......we should point out that history tells us that the taxes go into effect immediately while the spending cuts never seem to get done for some strange and mysterious reason.

    You can draw the same line for the 1986 amnesty ruling........if you give me amnesty today I will provide border security tomorrow or better known as the Wimpy rule.
    RxCowboy and ksupoke like this.
  17. ksupoke

    A/V Subscriber ksupoke I've never studied a HS recruits tape

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    8,034
    Location:
    San Francisco NTTAWWT
    :oops:
  18. JAYBEE

    JAYBEE Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,429
    Location:
    Oklahoma City
    The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act ) is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. LOOK IT UP!

    But let's not let facts get in our way.
  19. PokesFanatic

    PokesFanatic Cowboy

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,491
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    It was a knee-jerk response to 9-11 and contains within it several sections that are arguably violations of the principles of liberty as defined in the US Constitution--and it was Bush's baby. Running contrary to him on any point at that time was viewed by the 'boot up your ass' conservatives (such as Toby Keith) as treason.
    Hbuchanan likes this.
  20. naranjaynegro

    naranjaynegro Deputy

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,145
    Location:
    Houston area
    Just as FDR's actions (executive order) post pearl harbor (Japanese Internment) could be construed along the same lines. The point is that this happens all the time when national security is threatened. Only when the "perceived" threat goes away, do the folks come out of the woodwork to bitch/moan about said action.
    State likes this.

Share This Page