Posted on 07/23/2009 6:54:40 PM PDT by bamahead
BFL!
So yeah - what's proposed here is unconstitutional.
All this amounts to is Obama grabbing as much power as he can.
Of course this will never get the attention that it deserves, hell half of the congressmen won’t even see it they have so much paper hitting their desks these days.
If you ever heard his interview with NPR Obama believed that the office of the president was not given the full power that it should have been given. he believed that there were ways that power not assigned to the office could be taken.
He is brilliant (Evil) but brilliant. The tragic thing about him is he spent so much time learning about the ways around the constitution and so little time learning what it really means.
He is usurping at every turn he can, in every way that he can. It is nothing more than a very old useless piece of paper to him. If he thought for a minute he could get away with wiping his filthy a$$ with it he would as a symbolic gesture of what he thinks of our most prized possession.
May god have mercy and compassion on those of us who are going to have to live under his rule when he is done.
my pleasure ... I try to keep an eye on the stuff that flys under the radar, this one looked too big to be a bird .. when I started looking .. it was a fully loaded b-52 heading for all of us. :-(
So now how do we get the word out? Drudge??
>>> “May god have mercy and compassion on those of us who are going to have to live under his rule when he is done.
“
Why on earth would anyone have no choice but to live under his rule??
Jesus Christ man, grow a pair...
I hereby and officially question the manhood of anyone who laments having no choice but to live under marxist rule...
Your “Man cards” will be revoked and you will be required to send them back. However, you can keep the lacy pink holder you kept it in.
>Jesus Christ man, grow a pair...<
If you met me face to face, I highly doubt that you would take that stance. But I am seriously concerned for my wife and kids.
>>”If you met me face to face, I highly doubt that you would take that stance.”
That’s more like it...
;-)
Couple of corrections:
Under current law, the Bush tax cuts expire. The Bush tax cuts are current policy until they expire at the end of 2010. so when CBO said that the deficits would be lower under current law than it would be under current policy, they are saying that the deficits would be lower if the Bush tax cuts expired. and incidentally, CBO addressed that issue because the PAYGO bill would exempt legislation extending curret policy in some areas, including most of the Bush tax cuts.
Sequestration is an across-the-board cut in spending. The sequestration mechanism in the PAYGO bill is based on the Gramm-Rudman (written by Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman, Republican Senators) and signed by Ronald Reagan. So all of the negative comments here directed toward President Obama regarding sequestration apply to Ronald Reagan.
Meh... Any and all negative comments on my part are in reference to the fedgov and its current state of being. Specifically the fact that it is currently owned by marxist revolutionaries.
Even though I idolized the guy when I was younger, he was not the “god like” entity that some proclaim him to have been. While he did reverse some of the socialist trends of the fedgov, he was unable to get to some of the most damaging aspects and even then the things he did “fix” did not stay fixed for long after he left office. So “blaming” the actions of the M’er F’er’s of today on Reagan is a completely ineffectual argument with me.
The fedgov needs to be cut down by the states. It doesnt matter who did what or even why or when the federal government became a f’ing monster. It needs to either be put back in the cage the founders built for it or if that becomes impossible... We need to abandon it and starve it and its enablers to death.
OK, take Reagan out of it. You’re saying that you are against automatic spending cuts (which is what sequestration actually means) whether it is an Obama proposal or building off on Phil Gramm proposal Reagan signed. Is that what you really think, or are you so blinded by hatred of Obama that if he supports something you oppose it without even thinking about it?
I beg to differ with your definition if sequestration, as it is:
Sequestration (law), the act of seizing property from the owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.