So Hamilton is no longer a founding father? When was he demoted?
And yet not only was the United States born with millions in debt, but the Constitution explicitly describes the process for entering into debt. Wrong again.
Are you going to admit congress has to approve the debt limit?
And no, I will not admit that I am wrong, simply because the current system is not what the founding fathers wanted.
The nation was supposed to be ran with no debt.
Our current debt stands at three generations.
I have no problem with the government borrowing money. However, we can not pass that debt down to our children.
So Hamilton is no longer a founding father? When was he demoted?
And yet not only was the United States born with millions in debt, but the Constitution explicitly describes the process for entering into debt. Wrong again.
One method of upholding public credit, Washington argued, was “to use it as sparingly as possible.”
good general principle but that horse has left the barn. your solution is akin to burning down the barn.
Link please
To answer your question I quote George Washington, as he and I share the same sentiment on this "borrowing" issue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...gton-feel-about-the-national-debt-echoes.html
Our children,and our childrens children will have to pay for our sins against them.
Those aren't insults, those are statements of fact. This entire thread is filled with many, many people giving you piles of valid arguments as to why your position is insane. You have been unable to come up with a single valid argument as to why provoking a worldwide financial crisis is the way to go with here. Instead, you just edit out the arguments you can't answer.
Why can't you provide any credible sources that advocate the same position that you have?
Irrelevant. Whether a policy is good or bad has no relation to what Obama says about it.
Link to what? You're behaving like a child.
So in other words George Washington thought the country should use debt 'sparingly', not that the country should be run with no debt. Why are you providing links that destroy your own position?
and burning down the barn isn't going to help.
It's supposed to show that some people have a problem admitting when they are wrong, despite incontrovertible evidence staring them in the face.
A power of the legislature and legislating are not the same thing. Legislating is the creation of new laws, powers of the legislature are things that Congress is given power over.
As an example, Congress is specifically granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, just as it is given the power to borrow. Congress routinely delegates this power to the executive branch through one of a zillion different agencies. So while Congress can (and does) delegate that power all day long, they could not delegate to the executive the ability to decide what powers they will delegate.
For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
EDIT: fixed link
that Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch: "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]
I figure this national debt will be much like the civil war. Not a physical battle, but a battle that will divide the nation.
3 questions:
1. In your opinion did the law to permit the President a line item veto fail constitutional muster because it was faulty? E.g., did it fail to provide an ""intelligible principle"".
Fern
I'm only on page 7, but from what I've read so far TexasHiker has no clue whatsoever how annual budget appropriations work, or how fiat currencies are managed. Why do so many ignorant people try to take complex issues, and dumb it down to something they can wrap their head around and then claim to be experts on it. I've seen this same kind of thinking from my sisters redneck in-laws that live out in the boonies. They are too stupid to even begin to understand how a fiat monetary system works or how annual budget appropriations work, so they deduce it's complexity down to some simple lesson about balancing a checkbook that their daddy taught them, and assume anyone who thinks it's more complicated than that is a smarty pants elitist. Must be nice living in such a simple, insulated world. Only problem is that these people have a vote.
the line item veto failed because it failed the presentment clause. the non-delegation principle wasn't mentioned in the majority opinion.
Ahh, OK. Thanks. That appears to be a substantial correction to that specific line of discussion.
Fern
Ted Cruz is determined to waste everyone's time apparently. Currently blabbering in the Senate. If he successfully delays sending the amended bill back to the House, the likelihood of a shutdown is going to increase.
Edit: Hah. Cruz just read a letter from a constituent on Medicare who was complaining about Obamacare. Just wow.
Link to what? You're behaving like a child.
So in other words George Washington thought the country should use debt 'sparingly', not that the country should be run with no debt. Why are you providing links that destroy your own position?
Between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'?
That is taking care of itself and the debt is actually, in part, a response to that as government tries to fill in the gap of smaller incomes and fewer jobs. Of course, the have nots, once cut from the government tit, will have nothing to lose but to get together and kick the shit out of the haves and will win because of the sheer numbers. Might not happen right now but it's slowly churning.......
I say to borrow nothing. And if we do borrow, it must be paid by by the generation who borrowed the money. We can not borrow trillions of dollars that our grandchildren will have to pay back.
As in what? It should be basic common sense, debt = bad, living within a budget = good.
Yea, pretty much.
Are you referring to the water shortage facing the dallas area?
Here some advice, if you don't want to appear as an absolute idiot, don't make absolutist arguments.
Do you have a home mortgage?
Why do you imagine these debts will come due in the times of your grandchildren?
You said "So Hamilton is no longer a founding father? When was he demoted?"
What did Hamilton say about the debt?
And I will raise you 5:1.
You provide a link to Hamilton saying the national debt is a good thing, and I will provide 5 founding fathers who say the national debt is a bad thing.
Washington is destroying your argument that we should not have a debt limit.
You say to borrow as much as we want.
Washington said to borrow sparingly.
I say to borrow nothing. And if we do borrow, it must be paid by by the generation who borrowed the money. We can not borrow trillions of dollars that our grandchildren will have to pay back.
Do you take out loans that you "know" you will never be able to repay?
Do you take out loans that will take three generations to repay?
Do you take out loans that your children, and your grandchildren will have to repay?
I had a home mortgage, it was paid off a couple of years ago.
Every tax dollar you, your children, and your grandchildren will ever pay into the system has already been spent.
When are we going to stop enslaving future generations with debt?