Is This Where the US is Headed Someday?

[Contumacious]

Republicans the party of letting Businesses treat people like serfs and throwing granny off the cliff.

There's a reason libertarianism only gets 3-4% every election;. Stupid idea that is just as bad as the extreme lefts mindset.

Yes, indeed there is.

Our platform has no goodies for the parasites or the war profiteers.

.

 

[kwc57]

So how many Congresscritters would ever give any president the power enact laws without legislative approval?

How many?

Back in the early 80's, I spent time in Venezuela......and no, not vacation. No one then would have imagined a day that their president would have such power.......but he does. They have been "fundamentally changed" in the last 30 years.

In the US I believe such a move would take a Constitutional Amendment requiring approval from 3/4's of the states. And I just don't see that happening, ever.

I would hope you are right. However, did you ever think you'd see Congress passing a law that forces citizens to buy a product whether they want it or not while giving it away to others? Or that the SCOTUS would rule it constitutional? Or a president who believes he can just go around Congress and decree which pieces of the law will or will not be enforced? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the day is here. Venezuela is just a further down the road and should serve as a cautionary tale to us.

 

[DGS49]

Many of today's Progressives point to Western Europe as their model for what they want in the U.S. In Germany, for example, they have guaranteed healthcare from cradle to grave, generous and early pensions, college education is cheap, old folks homes are free, workers are paid well, and it is almost impossible (and pointless) to fire someone (pointless because you have to continue paying them anyway).

They dream of having it so well over here (although they are not allowed to say it out loud).

But there is a fundamental difference that Progressives refuse to acknowledge. We have a U.S. Constitution that PROHIBITS the Federal Government from doing any of this. Literally, ANY of it. There are two cornerstones of Congress' powers: Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment. The first one lists what Congress is permitted to do and the Amendment says that every power not specifically granted to Congress is RESERVED to the States and/or the people themselves.

All of the major Progressive initiatives since the Roosevelt years have been blatantly unconstitutional. Social Security - Unconstitutional. Medicare, AFDC, the SBA, NPR, the Department of Education, food stamps, and on and on. All unconstitutional.

Generations of subversive Progressive federal court judges and justices have systematically made a mockery of the Tenth Amendment, virtually writing it out of the Constitution. In the process, they have convinced most of America that these programs are as American and appropriate as apple fucking pie. The most recent poignant example was the USSC recently saying that Obamcare was Constitutional...because it is a TAX LAW!

Is this horse-shit or what?

But because all of these social programs are brought in through the back door, they run counter to the basic economic principles that have formed the groundrules for economic life for the past 200+ years.

We CAN'T HAVE socialized medicine, or even single payer here. Why? Because our whole healthcare system evolved under a totally different paradigm.

In Europe (and in Canada), they overtly made the decision long ago that healthcare was a "right" that would be guaranteed by the goverment. (None of them have a "Tenth Amendment." So the government runs the medical schools, employs the doctors, owns the hospitals, labs, and clinics, and controls everything from the top down. And if you want to work in the medical field, this is what you signed up for. And from what I've been able to determine it works reasonably well.

But here, essentially all provision of healthcare services is structured around the profit motive. Do you really think your Primary Care Physician, who now works 70 hours a week and makes half a mil, is going to go to work for the Government? Do you really think he's going to work that same 70 hours when he's on a salary of $150k? Do we have enough doctors to cover the demand when all of our healthcare is "FREE"?

Do you think the Government can take over hospitals and clinics and run them as efficiently as they do now? And if they decide to just take over the payment function, do you think they will do it well?

And what about the hundreds of thousands of people who work for health insurance companies? They would ALL BE OBSOLETE if we were to go to single-payer. Government going to throw them out on the street? Hell, no. They will pay them to basically do nothing (like everyone in Washington now).

Mark my words: ObamaCare was developed to make healthcare as costly and miserable as possible in the U.S., so that the population will get pissed off and demand single payer. Then we will all see how we like it when the local hospital runs as well as AMTRAK or the Post Office.

 

[RoadVirus]

Hispanics matter a lot as they just voted 71% against the republican party. Mainly because of the fact that the republicans oppose legalizing other Hispanics.

Yeah...shame on the Republicans for not wanting to reward criminals.

 

[RoadVirus]

On Tuesday night, Venezuelan lawmakers gave Maduro the power to enact law without legislative approval.

This is what we can expect if the Democrats take the House and keep the Senate in 2014.

 

[RoadVirus]

In the US I believe such a move would take a Constitutional Amendment requiring approval from 3/4's of the states. And I just don't see that happening, ever.

HUH?

The narcotized never cease to amaze me.

We have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state where the federal government controls all aspects of our lives and the dumb ass is saying that we need a constitutional amendment.

wake the fuck up.

.

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Like Obama gives a shit about the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

But there is a fundamental difference that Progressives refuse to acknowledge. We have a U.S. Constitution that PROHIBITS the Federal Government from doing any of this.

HUH?

For some reason your post reminds of one of [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM"]Aerosmith's song[/ame]

Dream on, dream on, dream on,
Dream until your dream come true
Dream on, dream on, dream on,
And dream until your dream come true
Dream on

.

 

[Mojo2]

Well we are becoming more and more Hispanic, so its natural that we will start to resemble a Hispanic country.

July 08, 2012 12:00 am • By Doug Ross,

The Affordable Care Act consists primarily of taking away many of our liberties by advocating health care for the less fortunate.

The government does not possess the authority to require an individual to purchase health insurance, so why try trick the uniformed into thinking the government knows what is best for them?

The Affordable Care Act is about government control over a large market and the welfare of those people.

As more companies drop their health insurance plans, those individuals will be required to join a government-controlled health plan and be subservient to that ideology.

This is just what the socialistic president wants — more people dependent on government and therefore more control over those individual lives. Again, just smoke and mirrors.

Watch this hand while I steal your liberties.

— Jack Jaros, Whiting

Affordable Care Act is about government control

 

[Iceman]

Hispanics matter a lot as they just voted 71% against the republican party. Mainly because of the fact that the republicans oppose legalizing other Hispanics.

Hispanics are irrelevant in a presidential election. And hispanics wouldn't vote republican if they supported amnesty, polls show both these trends. The GOP is better off renewing Nixon's, really Atwater's Southern Strategy to lock up the extra 4-5% of the White vote they need to win the next 3 elections.

 

[Mojo2]

This is a serious question. Conservatives oppose ever growing government and entitlements because this is where it leads......and it doesn't end well. There are some frightening similarities between what is happening in Venezuela now and plans and desires of Obama, the DNC and liberals in general with immigration, healthcare, stimulus, etc.

Venezuela seizes more stores ahead of local elections

"Forcing stores to sell their merchandise for a price that the owners say will put them out of business may sound like a bad idea, but President Nicola Maduro is not angling to improve the economy, Venezuelans say.

"This is going to help him and his party in the short term,'' says Alfredo Ramos , a political science professor at the University of the Andes in Merida. "His actions are motivating his backers to go out and vote, and disheartening his opponents. However, his actions could very well hurt him in the medium term.""........

........."Maria Davila felt like a winner after emerging from the Traki department store with clothes for herself and her husband, as well as toys for their four children.

Davila spent 14 hours in line to make her purchases after the store reduced prices by up to 70% on merchandise to comply with Maduro's crusade against the country's "parasitical bourgeoisie."

"It was well worth the wait," Davila, 42, says of her ordeal. "I saved so much money. I feel like I won the lottery."

Taking a page out of the late Hugo Chavez's populist playbook, Maduro is attacking the country's producers and businesses to boost his United Socialist Party of Venezuela for local elections Dec. 8."

"His orders may be followed by more. On Tuesday night, Venezuelan lawmakers gave Maduro the power to enact law without legislative approval. Maduro said he will use the authority to create a new state body to oversee Venezuela's currency controls that have led to widespread inflation and shortage of basic goods. He also said he will order that corporations slash their profit margins by up to 30%."

Take the policies, hope and change of Obama, Reid and Pelosi and take them to their logical end and this is where you wind up.

Yup!

Or similarly bad but in a different way.

Maybe worse.

Easily worse.

 

[BlindBoo]

[/B]

HUH?

The narcotized never cease to amaze me.

We have a gargantuan welfare/warfare state where the federal government controls all aspects of our lives and the dumb ass is saying that we need a constitutional amendment.

wake the fuck up.

.

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Again, bullshit.

In the name of "national secirity" they will get away with murder.


"Ever Expanding Executive Power

Charles H. Featherstone

The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a very in-depth piece on the Senate, the imperial presidency and its future. Of note, the piece says:

The assertion and expansion of presidential power is arguably the defining feature of the Bush years. Come January, the current administration will pass on to its successor a vast infrastructure for electronic surveillance, secret sites for detention and interrogation and a sheaf of legal opinions empowering the executive to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the country."

.

Ummm, The rise of the Imperial Presidency has been a bipartisan one. What has that got to do with the moronic notion that President/Democrats/Liberals policies on entitlement spending is turning us into Venezuela where the government ordered businesses to sell their stock at 70% off?

 

[kwc57]

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Again, bullshit.

In the name of "national secirity" they will get away with murder.


"Ever Expanding Executive Power

Charles H. Featherstone

The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a very in-depth piece on the Senate, the imperial presidency and its future. Of note, the piece says:

The assertion and expansion of presidential power is arguably the defining feature of the Bush years. Come January, the current administration will pass on to its successor a vast infrastructure for electronic surveillance, secret sites for detention and interrogation and a sheaf of legal opinions empowering the executive to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the country."

.

Ummm, The rise of the Imperial Presidency has been a bipartisan one. What has that got to do with the moronic notion that President/Democrats/Liberals policies on entitlement spending is turning us into Venezuela where the government ordered businesses to sell their stock at 70% off?

Because that is just another step in the progression of entitlement. When you've exhausted the tax base and still need the suppor that the entitlements you dole out brings, you find new ways.......like actually forcing companies to sell their goods at deeply discounted prices. You know, so there is more equality between the classes. How can someone be moronic enough not to see how one step leads to another?

 

[Mojo2]

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Again, bullshit.

In the name of "national secirity" they will get away with murder.


"Ever Expanding Executive Power

Charles H. Featherstone

The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a very in-depth piece on the Senate, the imperial presidency and its future. Of note, the piece says:

The assertion and expansion of presidential power is arguably the defining feature of the Bush years. Come January, the current administration will pass on to its successor a vast infrastructure for electronic surveillance, secret sites for detention and interrogation and a sheaf of legal opinions empowering the executive to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the country."

.

Ummm, The rise of the Imperial Presidency has been a bipartisan one. What has that got to do with the moronic notion that President/Democrats/Liberals policies on entitlement spending is turning us into Venezuela where the government ordered businesses to sell their stock at 70% off?

If Obama doesn't have the knowledge, experience, or wisdom to know when he has taken too many liberties with the Presidential Constitutional powers and gone too far, wouldn't you say he deserves the recriminations he's suffering and deserves to suffer the remedies proscribed by law?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We are so far from socialism it makes me sick. The affordable care act is the epitome of capitalism, it is forcing millions to enter the insurance industry. Obama also bailed out the big banks, the United States is nowhere near socialism.

Uneducated and frankly stupid - you are a perfect democrat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So how many Congresscritters would ever give any president the power enact laws without legislative approval?

How many?

I suspect that most democrats would gladly give Obama that power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Unless SCOTUS invents a new Constitutional "right" that allows it.

One more Elena Kagan on the court and it's a REAL possibility....

 

[Contumacious]

Congress simply cannot pass a law that would allow a President the power to enact legislation under his own authority. Such a change would require a change to the Constitution. The notion that they would try is nonsense.

Again, bullshit.

In the name of "national secirity" they will get away with murder.


"Ever Expanding Executive Power

Charles H. Featherstone

The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a very in-depth piece on the Senate, the imperial presidency and its future. Of note, the piece says:

The assertion and expansion of presidential power is arguably the defining feature of the Bush years. Come January, the current administration will pass on to its successor a vast infrastructure for electronic surveillance, secret sites for detention and interrogation and a sheaf of legal opinions empowering the executive to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the country."

.

Ummm, The rise of the Imperial Presidency has been a bipartisan one. What has that got to do with the moronic notion that President/Democrats/Liberals policies on entitlement spending is turning us into Venezuela where the government ordered businesses to sell their stock at 70% off?

No disagreement there.

That's the reason I do not understand the big deal about Reid's nuclear option. 75% of Republican congressman belong to the surrender caucus.

.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This is a serious question. Conservatives oppose ever growing government and entitlements because this is where it leads......and it doesn't end well. There are some frightening similarities between what is happening in Venezuela now and plans and desires of Obama, the DNC and liberals in general with immigration, healthcare, stimulus, etc.

Venezuela seizes more stores ahead of local elections

"Forcing stores to sell their merchandise for a price that the owners say will put them out of business may sound like a bad idea, but President Nicola Maduro is not angling to improve the economy, Venezuelans say.

"This is going to help him and his party in the short term,'' says Alfredo Ramos , a political science professor at the University of the Andes in Merida. "His actions are motivating his backers to go out and vote, and disheartening his opponents. However, his actions could very well hurt him in the medium term.""........

........."Maria Davila felt like a winner after emerging from the Traki department store with clothes for herself and her husband, as well as toys for their four children.

Davila spent 14 hours in line to make her purchases after the store reduced prices by up to 70% on merchandise to comply with Maduro's crusade against the country's "parasitical bourgeoisie."

"It was well worth the wait," Davila, 42, says of her ordeal. "I saved so much money. I feel like I won the lottery."

Taking a page out of the late Hugo Chavez's populist playbook, Maduro is attacking the country's producers and businesses to boost his United Socialist Party of Venezuela for local elections Dec. 8."

"His orders may be followed by more. On Tuesday night, Venezuelan lawmakers gave Maduro the power to enact law without legislative approval. Maduro said he will use the authority to create a new state body to oversee Venezuela's currency controls that have led to widespread inflation and shortage of basic goods. He also said he will order that corporations slash their profit margins by up to 30%."

Take the policies, hope and change of Obama, Reid and Pelosi and take them to their logical end and this is where you wind up.

I think we need to start being more specific with political terminology.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.



What's occurring in America now is a soft tyranny. rule by force threw fines, taxes, investigations, suing, "low level" discrimination, schooling the military that locals are terrorist, etc.

Ven calls themselves socialist, but it's just more tyranny.

The larger the Fed gets, the more power it's going to want, and power corrupts, etc, etc.



Will we see the Fed grabbing money, taxing the rich for justice? yea, we see it now. Only difference conservatives will feed and water the tree of liberty.

 

[BlindBoo]

Again, bullshit.

In the name of "national secirity" they will get away with murder.


"Ever Expanding Executive Power

Charles H. Featherstone

The Sunday New York Times Magazine ran a very in-depth piece on the Senate, the imperial presidency and its future. Of note, the piece says:

The assertion and expansion of presidential power is arguably the defining feature of the Bush years. Come January, the current administration will pass on to its successor a vast infrastructure for electronic surveillance, secret sites for detention and interrogation and a sheaf of legal opinions empowering the executive to do whatever he feels necessary to protect the country."

.

Ummm, The rise of the Imperial Presidency has been a bipartisan one. What has that got to do with the moronic notion that President/Democrats/Liberals policies on entitlement spending is turning us into Venezuela where the government ordered businesses to sell their stock at 70% off?

Because that is just another step in the progression of entitlement. When you've exhausted the tax base and still need the suppor that the entitlements you dole out brings, you find new ways.......like actually forcing companies to sell their goods at deeply discounted prices. You know, so there is more equality between the classes. How can someone be moronic enough not to see how one step leads to another?

That not a step, that's pole vaulting. President Obama is the worst Socialist Ever! Where is that confiscation and redistribution of wealth and property we were promised?

 

[BlindBoo]

So how many Congresscritters would ever give any president the power enact laws without legislative approval?

How many?

I suspect that most democrats would gladly give Obama that power.

I can't imagine any of them would.