If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

  • 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.

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,900
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#21
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. I said all Presidents have done it and that it is perfectly within the the right of the executive power to do what Presidents have done. The executive branch is charged with enforcing laws, the direction of the executive branch to enforce those laws is exactly what the constitution establishes. It is no different if a police officer decides to let a couple of pot smoking teens get away because he has better things to worry about. I by no means say this is right. I was pointing out that both sides pretend this is an issue exclusive to the opposition. The fact is the only way to address these issues are with constitutional changes or drastic changes to the law. The article originally posted is conservative propaganda in the same vane as the thousands of similar articles about Bush. The author has an agenda that would not apply to a President from his party. There are a lot of us out there that are sick of the partisan politics, especially when those bias are being fought in the media. How many arguments on this board center on a persons citations. A poster can't defend a point with a citation because someone always considers it a biased opinion. This is a critic of media, not of posters. I was careful to find the exact reports from the ABA because I believed that to be the best source without bias. There were tons of articles about the reports but all came from newspapers considered liberal, so I didn't use them. The problem I have is the article originally posted is designed to divide and not discuss. I have no problem with the argument or the topic, they are issues that should be discussed but when a "columnist" has an agenda to enrage a constituency for political reasons, that is just as scary as fear of over reaching political power.
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."
 

PlatypusJojo

Mysterious as the dark side of the moon
A/V Subscriber
May 29, 2010
9,736
11,411
743
27
Boston
#23
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."
What does bias have to do with this? Everything in this forum is biased somehow.
 

PlatypusJojo

Mysterious as the dark side of the moon
A/V Subscriber
May 29, 2010
9,736
11,411
743
27
Boston
#25
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.
Ah gotcha. So he brought it into this. My bad. :oops:
 
Jan 19, 2007
108
55
1,578
#27
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.
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.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,140
1,207
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#30
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:

President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.
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.



The 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act: Rather than bring spending in line with declining revenues, overspending and the resulting deficit caused widespread hysteria regarding the country’s fiscal health in 1982.
  • What was Promised: President Reagan signed the deal on September 3, 1982, agreeing to a budget deal with Congressional Democrats that promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.
  • What Actually Happened: The spending restraint never materialized – instead, the resulting tax hike made up almost 1 percent of GDP ($37.5 billion) and amounted to the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.
Moral of the story: When bipartisan deals are struck promising to cut spending and raise taxes, the spending cuts don’t materialize but the tax hikes do.
Two failed deals from the term of, arguably, one of the greatest Presidents the United States has ever seen.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,900
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#32
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.

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.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,000
17,632
1,743
#33
Real tax increases now for promised spending cuts later never works. One congress cannot bind another.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2
Exactly, it serves only to feed the machine. We have to stop feeding the machine.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,140
1,207
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#34
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.
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.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,900
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#35
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.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,140
1,207
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#36
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.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,540
15,900
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#37
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.
:oops:
 
Aug 19, 2006
1,497
255
1,713
Springfield, MO
#39
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.
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.
 

naranjaynegro

Territorial Marshal
Oct 20, 2003
7,140
1,207
1,743
58
Houston area
Visit site
#40
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.
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.