While I understand and agree with Trump’s anti-establishment base, nonetheless I believe he would make an awful president. We would be trading one tyrant for another. Don’t think for an instant that the Donald would let a silly thing like the constitution get in the way of his agenda or what is good for Donald. A Trump presidency would be a doubling-down on the expansion of executive power began in the Obama administration. Oftentimes I wonder if that isn’t why he is running – He has seen how easily power has been usurped by Obama and realizes that he could take over as king – damn the congress and SCOTUS.
Choosing a leader or president just because he is the best one at playing Monopoly is not a good strategy.
September 19, 2012 at 5:01pm
A balanced budget ammendment at the federal level is worthless. Sounds good, but means nothing. At the state level it works and many states have one written into their constitition. At the federal level however, the government has the power to print currency. So, there is a third leg to that stool – increase revenue, decrease spending or create more currency. Now, we all know that doing so will spike inflation, but it will balance the budget nonetheless.
I’m more of he school of thought that if the nation runs a deficit over the course of two election cycles for a representative or one election cycle for a senator, that individual is ineligible for reelection. Granted, there are times that deficit spending may be necessary, (eg, war) but it would make them think two or three times before doing so.
March 3, 2012 at 5:50pm
Hmmm. The plot thickens, doesn’t it.
If she expressly attended Georgetown University for the express reason of having standing to challenge their moral position on contraception and abortions.
According to collegestats.org, 46% of the students at Georgetown are on financial aid, 14% on federal aid and 32% use loans.”
And the loans would be federally guaranteed and the financial aid would also be coming from the Federal government, odds are that Ms. Fluke is at lease receiving some federal monies to attend Georgetown.
Would this not be a clear violation of the establishmet clause as intrepreted by the SCOTUS in recent years?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If a Church is cited by the IRS for preaching a political agenda from the pulpit and threatened to lose their 501(c)3 exemption, should it not be the same for one receiving federal funds to attend a Jesuit University?
February 23, 2012 at 4:53pm
The amount of debt one carries is only relevant if one intends to pay it back.
Yep. I wonder when the Chinese are going to crack the code?
They already have cracked the code. Eventually, we will all speak Chinese! What better way to conquer a people than to just buy them!
You realize that China doesn't not hold the majority of US debt? The majority is held by US Taxpayers. Again facts instead of paranoia.
ENCINOM, I've been reading your comments for some time now, and you cannot possibly be as stupid as you sound. You must be one of those personalities that just need to argue even when you know when you are wrong. Basic research debunks virtually everything that you type.
@Encinom apologies I should have I guess given someone like yourself more facts in stead of making the blanket statement that I did. China is the biggest owner of US Trasury bonds - over $1.14tn
As much as I hate to say this, cause Encicom is a libby nerd, he is correct. The US citizens and Corps own the most the most of our federal debt.
We audit the Fed, find all the illegal activity they have done, prosecute them and fine them the amount the people owe and be debt free.