Posted on 06/15/2016 8:36:41 AM PDT by Lorianne
One of the biggest threats to our economic outlook.”
Endless discussions of how important inflation is to the US economy, and how there hasn’t been enough of it in recent years, and how more inflation would be a godsend, has become the standard. The threat of lethal deflation is being brandished to rationalize all kinds of absurd monetary policies. And we know why: inflation is good only for debtors, in an over-indebted country.
But that’s not true either. Because a lot of debtors, particularly those who funded their education with loans, are being strangled by … inflation.
“College Tuition and Fees constitute one of the biggest threats to our economic outlook,” writes Jill Mislinski at Advisor Perspectives, which runs an excellent series of analyses and updates on the topic.
The chart below (by Advisor Perspectives) shows the Consumer Price Index sub-component for college tuition and fees (red line) going back to 1978. It also shows the price increases of autos (blue line) and medical care (purple line), “both of which pale in comparison”:
chart
(Excerpt) Read more at wolfstreet.com ...
Mentally indoctrinated, financially bankrupted. Government automatons.
We really need to elect Trump along with a Republican majority House and Senate.
THEN, we can get the economy GROWING again!
Socialism always wrecks an economy. Always.
The government has been actively destroying the jobs that they would have had via encouragement of labor dumping and offshoring.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but there IS a Republican majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives:
| House of the Senate (Source)* | |
|---|---|
| Republican | Democrat |
| 54 seats | 44 seats |
| House of Representatives (Source) | |
| Republican | Democrat |
| 247 seats | 188 seats |
Please expound on how electing more Republicans is going to keep them from siding with the Democrats as they have been doing for nigh on a decade.
* There are two Senators who are neither Democrat nor Republican.
Endless discussions of how important inflation is to the US economy
ANd the clueless think that letting the Money Changers and the Government STEAL 5% of the VALUE of EVERY DOLLAR is a good thing.
Inflation is THEFT!!!
Um, please correct me if I’m wrong, but IIRC, our Constitution requires a TWO-THIRDS majority to override a President’s veto.
Last time I checked, “54” is NOT two-thirds of 100 and
“247” is NOT two-thirds of 435.
Captain Zero has blocked American progress with his use of (and threat to use) his “veto pen”.
THEREFORE, saving American requires BOTH a Republican President AND Republican majorities in Congress. Both.
And, IMHO, a two-thirds Republican majority in the Senate would allow us:
1. to keep the Dems from “blocking” the appointment of patriotic judges and Justices and
2. to use “impeachment” to root out the bureaucracy’s most dangerous traitors.
It doesn't need to be a veto.
There's plenty that Congress can do w/o overiding a veto. They control the budget!
Captain Zero has blocked American progress with his use of (and threat to use) his “veto pen”.
Again, there are far, far more options available than simply caving in and not even trying.
THEREFORE, saving American requires BOTH a Republican President AND Republican majorities in Congress. Both.
Again, given what they haven't done; like rooting out the corruption of the FBI, ATF, DHS, DEA (all involved in Fast and Furious). Or slamming the door on the NSA for its illegitimate domestic espionage. Hell they could impeach USSC Justices, and absolutely could abolish the entire federal judiciary w/o any chance of the President vetoing it (impeachment and the structuring of the judiciary are "within Congress's original jurisdiction").
And, IMHO, a two-thirds Republican majority in the Senate would allow us:
1. to keep the Dems from “blocking” the appointment of patriotic judges and Justices and
Roberts, and a bunch of other despicable Judges were put in by Bush. A Republican majority means nothing so long as the judges being appointed are being taught that the Constitution means whatever the USSC says it does.
2. to use “impeachment” to root out the bureaucracy’s most dangerous traitors.
They could have already done that. You remember the NSA and news of its domestic espionage? They could have impeached the head of the NSA and they would have had a lot of popular support, even from moderates and liberals -- instead they played nice and didn't "rock the boat" and a whole lot of NOTHING came of it.
I don’t want to sound like an “apologist” for our do-very-little Congress, but...
Let’s suppose that GOP majorities pass a budget that cuts Obama’s “special entitlements” by 5%. And then suppose that Obama vetoes that budget. What happens? Obama shuts down the National Parks, the airports, the VA, the Post Office etc. and blames all the chaos that results on the GOP.
The media joins Obama’s false-flag parade — and eventually the GOP’s “united front” breaks down and RINOs and Democrats unite to pass the new increased budget that Obama wants. We’ve seen this little farce several times.
So what do YOU propose that the Congress DO that will produce a different result?
If I remember Bush’s appointment of Chief Justice Roberts correctly, the minority Democrats did NOT filibuster against him. This allowed him to be confirmed with a majority vote.
Now let’s imagine that President Trump nominates Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court. Senator Durbin can’t block him in the Judiciary Committee, but CAN initiate a “filibuster” to prevent a confirmation vote from occurring.
But, you say, a fillister can be ended with a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Indeed. But the Democrats hold more than 1/3rd of the seats.
What is your plan to get the Senate to ACT on Conservative agenda items if Democrats choose to wield the “filibuster” as an effective “veto”?
Then they should retaliate by passing a budget with even more cut, like say all monies for the NSA.
(Or have you forgotten about their SOP of completely ignoring the 4th's warrant requirements?)
Seriously, that's how you start dealing with a situation like that.
The media joins Obama’s false-flag parade — and eventually the GOP’s “united front” breaks down and RINOs and Democrats unite to pass the new increased budget that Obama wants. We’ve seen this little farce several times.
Start passing bills dissolving agencies that spend a lot of dollars: the ATF comes to mind. So does the DEA.
And all they would have to do is say that there's two reasons to do this: to cut out corruption, and to cut down on what has to be funded.
So what do YOU propose that the Congress DO that will produce a different result?
The above.
Plus playing dirty
— for example, the well known Roe vs. Wade found that laws outlawing abortions went against a "Constitutional right to privacy of medical records"; now, since the Constitution hasn't been amended since then they could apply that same reasoning to resolve that ObamaCare is illegitimate and contrary to the findings of Roe v. Wade. This would force the Obama administration to argue against the foundation of Roe in order to support ObamaCare. — The Congress could also help fast-track it to the high-court by dissolving the entire federal-level Judiciary (excepting the supreme court).
Seriously, there's many, many, many ways the Congress could throw its weight around.
Cruz is absolutely unsuitable for a USSC position — his actions speak very loud that he does not have allegiance to the Constitution:
Namely: his run for President; if we take his claim that he was eligible at face value, then we must realize that the qualifications for Natural Born Citizen (A) that there is no requirement to be born in the United States, and (B) that it may be passed down by one citizen parent only. As a result, in this model, any child of a NBC is an NBC as well… which means if John Tyler (the first NBC President) had a son who moved to Europe and married, say, the Crown Princess of England then their heir would be eligible for the Presidency as well as being in line for King of England.
This is exactly the situation that the founders wanted to prevent by the natural born citizen clause:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.— John Jay, in a letter to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention (George Washington), dated 25-Jul-1787.
I admire your fighting spirit!
I wish that some of your backbone could be grafted onto “our” Congressional “leaders”.
I agree that the simple and logical definition of “natural-born citizen” would be the best for America.
But the folks, who whine that this definition would prevent the children of diplomats, military personnel and other American citizen parents, who were born outside the United States from EVER becoming President, have been heard by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, IMHO.
We need a few more Justices who understand that a Constitution that “evolves” to conform to the fantasies of whoever is in power, is not worth any more reverence or respect than a rubber stamp.
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.