On McCain: Couldn't find a specific quote, but the Senate passed a resolution with UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Mitch McConnell on Cruz: "I just don’t think the Senate ought to get into the middle of this." Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Cruz: “No, I have no doubt. Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Do you also think that Congressional Republicans sending letters to Iran and otherwise disrupting Obama's foreign policy is a violation of the separation of powers as well? ~ In any case, looking back at the history of Executive Orders, we have a BIG DEALS in all eras that are certainly not of the "office supplies" variety: 1863 - Lincoln - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation - No explanation required, I hope. 1872 - Grant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colville_Indian_Reservation - "To create an "Indian Reservation" consisting of several million acres of land, containing rivers, streams, timbered forests, grass lands, minerals, plants and animals." 1902 - Theodore Roosevolt - http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trexecutiveorders.html - A whole host of EOs about land rights and land usage (some of which appears to be confiscating private lands or limiting their usage, but I am not sure) 1935 - FDR - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15053 - Works Progress Administration to create millions of jobs 1942 - FDR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066 - Authorizing Japanese internment camps Of course, there are many more examples. So it seems the US has a long history of using EOs to do... "big" things, and I am honestly not versed enough to know what is, or isn't, valid usage. What I do know is there has been specific and extreme focus on Obama's use of EO so I wonder if this is an anti-Obama thing, or if it is a new trend and he just happens to be the one in office when Americans started paying attention to EOs.
Not sure, to be honest I'm not very aware of this. Leaning towards yes though. Same, though honestly I recall Bush The Second got a flak for EO's at least during his last term. Clinton may or may not have, I was less politically aware during that time and most of the stuff they focused on near the end was his sex life. But I do know he got at least some flak for "Police Actions" using the military and whatnot.
By the way, if it came down to it, I'd vote for Trump it if it meant Cruz didn't become President. That guy scares me the most out of all the candidates.
Honestly, since I wasn't expecting Cruz to do so well, I wasn't paying much of any attention to him, other than a few snippets here and there (the Goldman Sachs thing for example, and the "Canadian/American" thing). What are your people's impressions of Cruz and (especially) his policies/platforms? Why do you like/hate/fear them?
The first thing is the fact that he is, in my opinion, anti-science and spouts debunked myths, in particular this is applicable to anti-climate change talking points, straight up misinterprets/misrepresents things, or makes strange arguments (for example, one of the arguments he makes is basically that scientists have been wrong before, so why should we believe them about climate change). He is anti-net neutrality and believes private companies should be able to control the internet without any form of taxation or regulation. He'd repeal Obamacare (with no known plan to address health care in general other than allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines). He has some fairly extreme views on government as far as I am concerned. Including wanting to abolish a ton of government agencies such as the Department of Education and the IRS. He believes that a balanced federal budget should be law (which seems like an insane idea to me entirely divorced from reality or the economic or logistical ramifications of such an idea). I honestly have no idea what would happen to a country if he were able to do some of these things - it's possible they are good ideas, but they seem less grounded in logic and more in rhetoric in most cases.
I agree with the points you've made, however, I am curious why you believe a balanced federal budget being mandated would be a bad thing.
There is also his sheer effectiveness as a liar (he set himself quite well to be able to claim he was on the "right" side regardless of how the immigration debate went) and is genuinely willing to stab whomever he needs to in the back in order to get what he wants. There is a reason he is despised by his senate colleagues of all political persuasions. He is untrustworthy and power-hungry in a way that exceeds the power hunger that is required to want to be president in the first place. I would absolutely vote for Trump over Cruz if it came down to the two. I would not even need to think about it.
Because that isn't how a government budget works. For an individual, income is typically fixed or at least reasonably reliable. For a government, income is constantly variable - every month it is a different number coming in, especially when a recession hits (like recently, which was a major part of the deficit). For an individual, there are many expenses that are optional. For a government, most expenses are mandated by law (such as Medicaid) or are already promised/allocated and they have to adjust to what is happening. (It's easy for a person who got paid a little less in a month to say, "Ok, I won't go out to eat tonight" but there isn't really a good equivalent in government.) So it's a lot more difficult for a government to just suddenly not spend compared to an individual. For an individual, not going out to eat is a small concession and doesn't have dramatic ripple effects. For a government, if an entire agency gets shut down or put on unpaid leave, those people all end up on welfare at least for awhile, increasing government expenses while reducing receipts (which would then lead to more cuts, which then increases welfare, which then leads to more cuts?). Not to mention the economic impacts in the months down the line with people being laid off, etc. This type of transitions also creates economic uncertainty for many people (both employees of the government and the private sector), potentially further harming the economy. Many government projects/grants, etc. are also multi-year project. You aren't going to goto Mars off a one-year plan. But if you say "We'll give you 500 million this year NASA, and the next year Government debt is also one of the safest and most reliable forms of investment - because unlike stocks or commodities, it's almost guaranteed the US government will be around 50 years from now. Without some kind of government debt, this type of investment does not exist. Not only does this reduce the ability for people to save and provide for their retirement, it also reduces foreign direct investment, and important part of the economic engine. I am not saying run up deficits forever and go la la la. But having a mandated balanced budget every year just ends up creating an extremely volatile situation from an economics standpoint. Part of the reason higher tax countries tend to have less economic volatility is because government spending tends to be more static (while individuals and the private sectors react much more readily to stimuli), thus economic impacts of recessions and downturns are often more muted (for better or for worse). For me, the key is to maintain a budget that is reasonable from a per capita standpoint. Sometimes you will have deficits, sometimes you will have surpluses. Don't over-react in EITHER direction. Part of the reason the US has a huge deficit now isn't JUST because of increased spending, but because of the massive tax cuts in the last 20 or so years. (Of course, the US has long-term looming problems with Social Security and such that really need a solution SPECIFICALLY, but I am just talking in general re: Budgets.)
Don't be ridiculous. Obama is a moderate democrat. He's a centrist who compromises, his actions socialist heart? What, universal healthcare? More gun regulations? You mean the sort of stuff every other civilized country on earth has, is socialist? He's still bombing the Bane Shift out of several countries. Gitmo still lives on. I swear, America doesn't seem know the first thing about socialism. The right is so extreme that everything else is socialist or worse. I have seen a "socialist" government for 8 years in the last 10 years in Belgium. It's nothing like Obama.
I see your point. While an individual year may be deficit or surplus, getting the country to the point that a long term average breaks even would still be good.
I only looked superficially at the post, but I would like to use this post to reply to a few things. An executive order should only pertain to things that are executive in nature like how does the executive branch agencies do the tasks they are supposed to do. They should not do any legislating. Article 1 section 1 of the US Constitution makes things quite clear." All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress..." Next comment is addressed to mw24. Get off the opposition to Obama is a result of racism nonsense. He is being opposed due to the policies. I personally think his race has actually ***reduced*** the backlash, because the screamies can claim it's nothing more than racism when that's BS. I saw the 'birther' issue mentioned. Under the Natural Law definition of natural born citizen, minimally the father must be a citizen of the nation for the child to considered a natural born citizen regardless of where the child is born. There is a more strict definition that requires both parents to be citizens and the child to be born in the country to meet that definition. Under either definition Obama is not eligible to be president. Neither is Cruz nor Rubio (IIRC) since none of the fathers were US citizens at the time of their births. That was not an issue for Romney nor McCain. Having said that, the fact is the Natural Law requirement is not being used. English Common Law definition is much more relaxed and has apparently been used. As far as the race is concerned, it looks the republican race is a 3 person race with a couple others hoping for a change. For the democrats I don't this as a slam dunk for Hillary.
Could you be more specific? None of the 5-10 posts above yours discuss his positions and I'm not going to sort through 100 posts.
The ones between this post and my last post, I'd imagine. It's on this page so doesn't take much time to find.
Without having read his post, I imagine all his talk about abolishing the IRS and the insane religious talk.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists-new-hampshire/index.html lmfao
