Originally Posted by Vincine
Well, since you asked,
Yes, I do think you are nuts.
Actually I think you're just angry and are looking for someone and/or something tangible to blame. It's understandable if not logical.
The debt has increased since Obama has been in office but it is not 'his' debt that will cause the devaluation. The biggest recent increase to the debt was in George the II's administration. It was the two wars, the auto industry bailouts, and the prescription drug plans, among other things. It really dwarfs Obama's. George II also gave us the financial industry bailout but as it turns out we made money on that one, or at least the government did anyway, so that one shouldn't count. The only recent administrations that did not
increased the debt were George the I's & Clinton's. All the others
have their hands dirty, but George II's are dirtiest.
The developed nations are in a world wide economic crises because of:
longer lives due better health care;
fewer caregiver children causing increasing demand for aging social services due to lower birthrates;
diminishing cheap energy due to having picked all the low hanging fruit;
living beyond our means due to easy unsecured credit;
computer technology eliminating massive amounts of jobs;
and most recently to wealth created without anything being produced or needed in return.
There are many, many
other factors and it has been building up for for many, many
years, and now it's time to pay the bill. We shouldn't blame the current store clerk.
Ascribing an 'evil' intent and subsequent actions by the current crop of elected 'representatives' as the major cause of our malaise is beyond the pale. Do you really believe they are that competent? You are giving them way more credit than they deserve. I think it is false to think Obama, or anyone else,
is doing anything more than just trying to hang on the tail of the tiger.
The only question is; Are we in for a hard ten or fifteen years as a new economy develops, or are in for something more abrupt, painful and possibly violent.
You are right about all the factors except one. Obama is not holding on to the tigers tail, he is holding on to the reins and guiding the tiger. Our Treasonous Congress has aided him in bringing the country to its knees. We have nothing but a dog and pony show going on in Washington. This was posted in the Legal and Activism section. It spells the end of the Constitution and the end of the USA as we know it. If this becomes law, We will no longer be free. The camps are already in place. Look up General Pike from the civil war. What you find will surprise you.
Deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867) that the Senate is currently considering is a dangerous and unconstitutional portion that needs to be stripped out. Congress would grant the President the power to use the military in order to detain certain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process, indefinitely.
Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads: "Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.... [including] [d]etention under the law of war without trial...." This "indefinite detention" section hands over to the Executive Branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens. No trial needed. Simple suspicion would suffice.
This could be quite reminiscent of Stalinist Russia where a knock on the door in the middle of the night meant that the person taken by the military was often never seen again, perhaps having been imprisoned in Siberia or executed. The Japanese American Citizens League has warned that this measure's detention principles are similar to the ones that sent innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WW II.
Sadly, this bill has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote. The excuse given for such an egregious disregard for the Constitution by supporters of the bill including authors Senators John McCain (R- Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is that the provision would strengthen and codify the legal framework necessary for dealing with "terrorists." Other supporters insist that the language doesn't necessarily include American citizens.
U.S. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who voted against the bill in the House, thinks differently. Amash says the act would indeed "permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President." He notes that the language "does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," therefore it is misleading and outrageous.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is speaking out in opposition to the "indefinite detainment" provision of S. 1867. He is also offering an amendment that would simply strike out Section 1031 of the bill. As this alert is being written on November 29, the Senate is debating S. 1867 and could vote on the Paul amendment this evening or tomorrow, November 30. A related amendment by Senator Udall to revise the detainee provisions of S. 1867 has already been defeated today by a vote of 37 yeas and 61 nays.
Indefinite detention without due process leaves citizens without the legal protection of the Constitution and strikes at the heart of the essence of U.S. law. It is positively shameful that any elected representative would even consider voting for such an assault on so sacred a fundamental value as the right to due process.
Far too much power has already been either usurped or given over to the Executive Branch under the guise of national security. Contact your Senators immediately and demand that they safeguard individual freedom and liberty by upholding the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Have them support the Rand Paul amendment that would completely strike Section 1031 from S. 1867, or any other amendment that would accomplish the same purpose.
If one or more amendments are added to S. 1867, it will likely go to a conference committee and then return to both the House and the Senate for a final vote. So, a word to your Representative on this issue is also advised. Make sure you find out how he or she voted on the NDAA before getting in touch.