Jump to content

Should the US declare bankruptcy?


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

We shall be back.

 

As soon as Obama is out of office.

 

Obama has nothing to do with George W. Bush spending 8 trillion dollars...

 

Obama spends 1.4 trying to straighten Dubya's ******** out and this is his fault?

 

Trusting in any politician is just foolish. What person is going to bring us "back" when Obama is gone? You act like it's as easy as replacing the current administration... that's ****ing ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with George W. Bush spending 8 trillion dollars...

 

Obama spends 1.4 trying to straighten Dubya's ******** out and this is his fault?

 

Trusting in any politician is just foolish. What person is going to bring us "back" when Obama is gone? You act like it's as easy as replacing the current administration... that's ****ing ridiculous.

 

I can't read that. I didn't make it out of the second grade.

 

And I have a headache as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, sooner or later the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a **** about them,

government doesn?t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety,

it simply doesn?t give a **** about you.

It?s interested in its own power, that?s the only thing, keeping it and expanding it wherever possible?

 

5158239.bin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with George W. Bush spending 8 trillion dollars...

 

Obama spends 1.4 trying to straighten Dubya's ******** out and this is his fault?

 

Trusting in any politician is just foolish. What person is going to bring us "back" when Obama is gone? You act like it's as easy as replacing the current administration... that's ****ing ridiculous.

 

So instead of making the man who is holding the office accountable, you're blaming the guy who has been out for nearly 4 years? You liberal folks are a joke. Obama doesn't need your protection or reassurance. He knew what he was getting into when he swore in.

 

 

"What?!?!? You mean I'm responsible for the $14.6 trillion in debt? Why didn't someone tell me this?!?" /eyeroll

 

 

Oh yeah, and he damn sure didn't deserve a Peace Prize...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So instead of making the man who is holding the office accountable' date=' you're blaming the guy who has been out for nearly 4 years? You liberal folks are a joke. Obama doesn't need your protection or reassurance. He knew what he was getting into when he swore in.

 

 

"What?!?!? You mean I'm responsible for the $14.6 trillion in debt? Why didn't someone tell me this?!?" /eyeroll

 

 

Oh yeah, and he damn sure didn't deserve a Peace Prize...[/quote']

 

Learn how to read and get back to me. Where did I defend the man? I even said trusting in any politician is foolish.

 

However you defending dubya is hilarious. Liberal folks? What the ****...

 

The poster I was replying to said we will be "back" when Obama is gone... lol how so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has nothing to do with George W. Bush spending 8 trillion dollars...

 

Obama spends 1.4 trying to straighten Dubya's ******** out and this is his fault?

 

Trusting in any politician is just foolish. What person is going to bring us "back" when Obama is gone? You act like it's as easy as replacing the current administration... that's ****ing ridiculous.

 

it doesnt help when Obama is handing out money to banks who do nothing but sit on it, and the smart ones probably invested it in other nations currency which would help explain why everyone elses currency seems to be passing the dollar.

 

Obama hasnt done **** for the US economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, Americans... you make me laugh inside. Your economy has gone down the toilet (which in part was completely avoidable had your lending regulators learned to not give home loans to people without jobs) and yet all you do is divide yourselves more deeply with partisan politics.

 

Like you guys give a **** about your debt ceiling. Simply raise it and keep going, it's not like the US is actually ever going to pay off it's debt. Hell GW raised the debt ceiling 7 times during his Presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody who thinks either Democrats or Republicans are right is mistaken. Neither side gives a **** about the middle class. Brewster- What is a Super Moderator and how did you become one?

 

As a mod, we keep this pace running smooth (or try). You become one by being a quality member who has quality posts and avoids conflict and helps resolves disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been acquiesceing to international bankers that lend/print us money for almost a century. They're the ones who put us in this mess, not Obama, Bush, or any other partisan puppet, and people are seriously asking whether we should just roll over and admit defeat?

 

The only debt we should honor is that to insurance companies, state/local governments, mutual funds, pension funds, savings bonds, and other nations around the world.. because those holdings actually effect normal people.

 

Everyone should take their money out of banks (especially if they're JPMorgan Chase, Bank of American, CitiGroup, or any of their affiliates), and say a big "**** You!" to the Federal Reserve system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learn how to read and get back to me. Where did I defend the man? I even said trusting in any politician is foolish.

 

However you defending dubya is hilarious. Liberal folks? What the ****...

 

The poster I was replying to said we will be "back" when Obama is gone... lol how so?

 

Your trolling is weak. I wasn't defending GWB. I was merely pointing out that Obama is not Jesus reincarnated as you seem to think. It took MANY years to get the country where it is. Far beyond the reach of Mr. Bush.

 

I don't stand for partisan politics and I was pretty sure that the "proud constitutionalist" in my sig was a dead give away of that. So I will enlighten you...

 

Constitutionalism has a variety of meanings. Most generally' date=' it is "a complex of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law".

 

A political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s'] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority". As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:

 

"Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply imbedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials?. Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law."

 

Constitutionalism has been the subject of criticism for its previous ignorance of economic issues but this criticism is now taken into account by the development of constitutional economics. Constitutional economics is a field of economics and constitutionalism which describes and analyses the specific interrelationships between constitutional issues and the structure and functioning of the economy. The term ?constitutional economics? was used by American economist ? James M. Buchanan ? as a name for a new academic sub-discipline. Buchanan received in 1986 the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his ?development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making.?[15] Buchanan rejects ?any organic conception of the state as superior in wisdom, to the individuals who are its members.? This philosophical position is, in fact, the very subject matter of constitutional economics.

 

A constitutional economics approach allows for a combined economic and constitutional analysis, helping to avoid a one-dimensional understanding. Buchanan believes that a constitution, intended for use by at least several generations of citizens, must be able to adjust itself for pragmatic economic decisions and to balance interests of the state and society against those of individuals and their constitutional rights to personal freedom and private happiness. Constitutional economics draws substantial inspiration from the reformist attitude which is characteristic of Adam Smith?s vision, and that Buchanan?s concept can be considered the modern-day counterpart to what Smith called ?the science of legislation.? Concurrently with the rise of academic research in the field of constitutional economics in the U.S. in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for almost a decade had been encouraging public interest litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a very broad interpretation of several articles of the Indian Constitution. This is a vivid example of a de facto practical application of the methodology of constitutional economics.

 

The Russian school of constitutional economics was created in the early twenty-first century with the idea that constitutional economics allows for a combined economic and constitutional analysis in the legislative (especially budgetary) process, thus helping to overcome arbitrariness in the economic and financial decision-making: for instance, when military expenses (and the like) dwarf the budget spending on education and culture. In the English language, the word ?constitution? possesses a whole number of meanings, encompassing not only national constitutions as such, but also charters of public organizations, unwritten rules of various clubs, informal groups, etc. The Russian model of constitutional economics, originally intended for transitional and developing countries, focuses entirely on the concept of state constitution. In 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences officially recognized constitutional economics as a separate academic sub-discipline.. Since many a country with transitional political and economic system continues treating its constitution as an abstract legal document disengaged from the economic policy of the state, the practice of constitutional economics becomes there a decisive prerequisite for democratic development of the state and society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...