40 years of unchecked executive power. One party gets in and his supporters don't mind the particular things he's doing over the objections of his opponents. Then the other party gets in power and his supporters don't mind the particular things he's doing over the objections of his opponents. In the end, all that has resulted is that the office of the president has spent two presidential terms taking more and more power.

 

There's only one way to stop it and that's for Congress to wake up and take back its birthright. Both parties can chew on that one.

 

And we already know who will get more power due to an Obama second term - the socialist Russians.

 

"After my election I will have more flexibility." This video should put a cold chill in every Americans spine.

 

Have you not heard of a 'Mixed Market" Economy?

 

Plus, where in the Constitution or Declaration does it talk about Capitalism?

 

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

We the PEOPLE

in order to form a more perfect UNION

establish JUSTICE

ensure domestic tranquility (PEACE)

provide for the COMMON defense

promote the general welfare

secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

Really think about those words and think about the East India Tea Company and how it was in bed with the british government and how that government was passing laws to benefit a company as opposed to taking care of the people and the rebellion that ensued.

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

You want pure capitalism, but you want government protection for certain companies as well. We don't want pure capitalism because we end up with monopolies like Ma Bell and imagine if one Airline controlled the skies. Pure capitalism allows wealth to be concentrated, what our founding fathers envisioned was for WEALTH to be shared by all.

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

Edited August 14, 201214 yr by marvel

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

 

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

 

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

:thumb:

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

 

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

 

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

 

 

At no point anywhere did I say "share YOUR wealth", I said share THE wealth. Unless of course we really want to live in an Objectivist world where money and power are concentrated in the hands of the few. That is much more of a danger to our democracy than anything the President has done.

 

As to Wikipedia and Mixed Market economy, I knew that all by myself. Public School teacher - social studies. i know, we all suck and education in America is horrible, blah, blah, blah.

I've heard of it, Ace. You aren't the only person to have Wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, mixed markets fail everywhere they're put in place. You cannot name one that has worked.

 

Where in the Constitution does it talk about private property? Does that mean it shouldn't exist?

 

 

 

How does Obama appointing Czars, making bureaucracies/government bigger, and signing a law that exempts certain positions from Senate confirmation constitute as 'We the People'?

 

How does him withholding documents from Fast and Furious to save that weaselly AG of his establish justice?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA using their drone program to kill american citizens without due process and keeping the patriot act in place a way to ensure domestic tranquility?

 

How does the Obama Administration and the CIA backing the rebels who fight with our biggest enemy - and biggest ally - Al Qaeda, provide for the common defense?

 

How does promoting the general welfare turn into providing for other people by taking the property of others?

 

Do you know what you are saying?

 

 

 

You just proved my point. You perfectly explained what happens when government and business are too close. Do you not realize that big banks and other major corporations have 'regulations' in place to keep other competitors out of play? If we have a mixed market, this is inevitable. When you have any form of government mingling in the market, whether you think it is for the peoples benefit, it turns out just the opposite. Why would I want a government who labels their own laws as 'The Patriot Act' and then it takes away my privacy and freedoms, completely taking away from the word 'patriot'. I see the same thing when government decides to put regulations in place that will protect me from the evil businessmen.

 

 

 

 

Your putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I wanted government protection for certain companies? The society you promote does what you accused me of wanting. You don't even know your what your own ideas are about and the consequences that follow :lol:. A mixed market obviously enables the government to protect certain companies. What has happened in the past ten years with certain industries? You want to blame wealth being concentrated into a select few? Look at the mixed market we have had for the past 100 years.

 

Wealth to be shared by all? You mean like GW not admiring the fact he was getting taxed too much by the crown so he decides to start an under the table business so its tax free? He wanted his wealth to be shared by all?

 

When you tell me I have to share my money, you are saying I am enslaved to you and others. You become a parasite. Its my money. Not yours and not my neighbors. Deal with it, bro.

 

Where has pure capitalism ever existed and thrived. By the way, the Declaration COULD have easily said Property, since the gist of it was taken from Locke who talked about the pursuit of life, liberty, and property, but TJ changed it happiness. Interesting. Read Locke's 2nd Treatise and see what it says about labor and property and capital. No one in the history of the world, outside of the Russian Atheist, has ever suggested that the concentration of wealth like we see now is a good thing.

At no point anywhere did I say "share YOUR wealth", I said share THE wealth. Unless of course we really want to live in an Objectivist world where money and power are concentrated in the hands of the few. That is much more of a danger to our democracy than anything the President has done.

 

The bold is why you are having a hard time comprehending economics. My wealth is part of 'THE wealth,' as little as it is. When you say share/spread the wealth, you are saying that the government,through coercion, should take it -through an income or capital gains tax, whatever you wanna call it - out of my paycheck. You are saying that you and others are entitled to it. I want to simply know why? I don't want to live in an objectivist world....that would require me to follow all of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I want to live in a free world. As I said before. The only time you see money and power centralized is through economies that have central banks and businesses with close ties to the government. You are more than welcome to name the biggest banks and corporations that have a majority of the wealth and I promise you 99% of them are closely affiliated with government. That is what mixed market does. That is what we already have.

 

 

As to Wikipedia and Mixed Market economy, I knew that all by myself. Public School teacher - social studies. i know, we all suck and education in America is horrible, blah, blah, blah.

 

You didn't learn that on your own. Somebody else made that happen.

Where has pure capitalism ever existed and thrived.

 

The internet. People can maximize their resources and their talents, all for the sake of profit. Its doing wonderful.

 

Other than that, the closest we have ever gotten was the 19th century. Please take note that I know capitalism isn't perfect but it is the only system where the individual has complete control over his own life and decisions. He/she is able to use their mind, talent, capabilities and anything else that makes them, them to the fullest extent. Everyone has equal opportunity.

 

By the way, the Declaration COULD have easily said Property, since the gist of it was taken from Locke who talked about the pursuit ofh life, liberty, and property, but TJ changed it happiness. Interesting. Read Locke's 2nd Treatise and see what it says about labor and property and capital. No one in the history of the world, outside of the Russian Atheist, has ever suggested that the concentration of wealth like we see now is a good thing.

 

I wish it did say it so people like you would quit demanding it to be taken from productive minds. Maybe the FF just figured it would be outlandish to think someone in the future would be so obsessive in demanding others property goes to those who haven't earned it.

The internet. People can maximize their resources and their talents, all for the sake of profit. Its doing wonderful.

 

Other than that, the closest we have ever gotten was the 19th century. Please take note that I know capitalism isn't perfect but it is the only system where the individual has complete control over his own life and decisions. He/she is able to use their mind, talent, capabilities and anything else that makes them, them to the fullest extent. Everyone has equal opportunity.

 

 

 

I wish it did say it so people like you would quit demanding it to be taken from productive minds. Maybe the FF just figured it would be outlandish to think someone in the future would be so obsessive in demanding others property goes to those who haven't earned it.

 

Who hasn't earned it? The welfare queen was proven a racist urban myth long ago. The amount of money from the federal government that goes to welfare is miniscule and those that abuse this system is even smaller. So a small miniscules portion of a miniscule portion is the basis for your whole economic policy.

 

Were it not for folks with great foresight you would not have the internet, road, airtravel.

 

So we had pure capitalism in the 1800s during the time of slavery and the civil war and reconstruction. Really. Pure capitalism results in people OWNING other people. That is not where I want to live. But I think you are correct. It is where we are heading now if we let the radical right wing get control

Who hasn't earned it? The welfare queen was proven a racist urban myth long ago. The amount of money from the federal government that goes to welfare is miniscule and those that abuse this system is even smaller. So a small miniscules portion of a miniscule portion is the basis for your whole economic policy.

 

Were it not for folks with great foresight you would not have the internet, road, airtravel.

 

So we had pure capitalism in the 1800s during the time of slavery and the civil war and reconstruction. Really. Pure capitalism results in people OWNING other people. That is not where I want to live. But I think you are correct. It is where we are heading now if we let the radical right wing get control

 

With the bolded you just hit mountain ref status.

Where has pure capitalism ever existed and thrived.

 

...

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'pure'. But all successful long term economies are based on capitalism, free markets and individual freedom. The three items are co-requirements for each other. None can survive without the other two.

 

Milton Friedman explained this best years ago on the Phil Donahoue show.

 

[video=youtube;g-o0kD9f6wo]

One more from Mr. Fredman. An excellent discussion with an average woman from the audience.

 

Main topics - what 'rich guys' do with their money. The woman provides the answer and Friedman the does a wonderful job explaining the results of her own answer.

 

It closes with taking on the inhumanity of the minimum wage and its impact on young people.

 

[video=youtube;Wi-D24oCa10]

Who hasn't earned it? The welfare queen was proven a racist urban myth long ago. The amount of money from the federal government that goes to welfare is miniscule and those that abuse this system is even smaller. So a small miniscules portion of a miniscule portion is the basis for your whole economic policy.

 

Were it not for folks with great foresight you would not have the internet, road, airtravel.

 

So we had pure capitalism in the 1800s during the time of slavery and the civil war and reconstruction. Really. Pure capitalism results in people OWNING other people. That is not where I want to live. But I think you are correct. It is where we are heading now if we let the radical right wing get control

 

What do you consider to be miniscule? According to this link it's $450B at the federal level for fiscal year 2012. Combine that with the state and local level and it is jumps to $680B. US Welfare Spending for 2012 - Charts

Who hasn't earned it? The welfare queen was proven a racist urban myth long ago. The amount of money from the federal government that goes to welfare is miniscule and those that abuse this system is even smaller. So a small miniscules portion of a miniscule portion is the basis for your whole economic policy.

 

Were it not for folks with great foresight you would not have the internet, road, airtravel.

 

So we had pure capitalism in the 1800s during the time of slavery and the civil war and reconstruction. Really. Pure capitalism results in people OWNING other people. That is not where I want to live. But I think you are correct. It is where we are heading now if we let the radical right wing get control

 

"185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)."

 

I'm not seeing how that is minuscule...

 

Federal housing cost roughly 80 billion in 2010. Stamp costs were around 75 billion in 2011 (in 2008 it was 36 billion).

 

Radical right? :lol: Your're certainly paranoid. Under your mixed market philosophy, who gets the crap end of the stick? Blacks and Hispanics have it rougher than anyone in these types of economic slumps. Its because we have followed your mixed market agenda.

 

I never said we had pure market capitalism. I said it was the closest thing. Remember that laws and regulations is what allowed slavery to exist in the first place. The less laws we have, the better we are off. You think too much with your emotion and it makes you irrational. You and your leftist clan have put minorities in the worst position they can find themselves in since the 60's.