Originally posted by inforeal

Your problem is that you are being too literal.

I'm being to literal? Sorry mate, but when facts are in dispute, being literal is the only way to be. You said it, and it should be taken on face value.

Your continued refusal to accept our political structure tells me that you would rather beat a dead horse than to admit a fact that is obvious to even the most casual of observers.

Enjoy
KJ

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
You are totally wrong. In a DEMOCRACY, the civil rights movement(ie rights for minorities) would never have passed.

Thank you, sheesh. I really don't understand these people sometimes. Maybe I'll start a new Gideon-like group that prints free history and political theory books.

Glad to know there are others.

The Tea-Party is doing what a Representative Republic should do. Not cave to the majority. This country was founded so 51% didn't rule the 49%. That's why my state rep has the most power in the House of Reps. She's the only one representing the voice of her state. She represents less people than a Rep from CA or NY. What this means is her voice is louder than the NY/CA rep, but does that mean she is listened to?

I've come to the conclusion there needs to be a ratification of the Constitution that for a bill to pass in the Senate or House of Reps, it should be a 100% yay or nay. Not this super majority of 66%. With 100% affirmation, there is no more of one state saying what is in the best interest of the other state. It would immediately reduce government oversight, because it would encourage limited federal government. If it's a good enough law, then every "state" will be on board, and not have some NY anti-gun nut dictating that I can't own a firearm in a state 2,000 miles away.

I say kudos to the Tea-Party. The political machine has a monkey wrench in its cog! OHNOEZ the world will end, since we have to do what we were elected to do and come to compromises that reflect what our constituents want.

Who said America was a democracy. We are a republic. A democratic republic perhaps,but a republic non-the-less.

Only in America would people trying to balance the national budget be branded extremists
Boehner and the Tea party passed a bill to raise the ceiling.

Friday night the Senate voted to table House Speaker Boehner’s debt bill 59 to 41.
I would think this guy is responsible.

The point that is stated is that the Tea party is anti-democratic and guilty of abusing power. And yet there is no evidence that they have done any of that, save demand a balanced budget and that the congress and federal government to follow through on doing just that. Right now there is a growing and valid concern over the debt of the nation. This is what has been growing for years, and fiscal irresponsibility on the part of both the Republicans and the Democrats are ultimately responsible for this problem. For far too long the will of the people has been ignored as it has been politically incontinent for those in the halls of power to listen and actually do something to benefit the entire country at large. And now there is a group of newly elected officials that are demanding responsibility from the rest of the federal government to prevent this from going further down the road to financial ruin. And this is bad and anti-democratic and abusing power why? Is it any more abusive of power than buying the vote of a representative at the tune of 300 million, or any more guilty of abusing power by forcing the majority of the people to accept a law that is so controversial and unrealistic, even when the people are saying no? Or how about insulting the voters by saying in short, we know better than you, when trying to sell that bill to the general public.
The main issue here is the debt and how to lower it, and those that were elected into congress know that we can not continue with business as usual. They are demanding a new budget and one that would lower the debt and hold the government accountable, and if it brings the federal government to a standstill, then so be it, perhaps it needs to be brought to a standstill. Better to be honest in their attempt and motives than dishonest and underhanded like some of the congresses before them. The people have woken up and decided that the change and government they want, needs to start with replacing incumbents and keep that power going that way the country starts to change. If neither the Republicans or the Democrats are willing to do with it, then the people who elected those 85 freshman to congress have the right idea, sack the old guys and bring in the new.
And all over a growing debt. Having paid attention to the debt and the arguments, the following can be stated:
We can not raise taxes, there is no way that the country can handle more taxes, on a group that either have no jobs, or are taxed enough. There needs to be cuts in spending across the board, to balance the budget and the federal government for the first time in its history has to live within its means. That means no more raising the debt ceiling and starting to reverse the flow of money going out the door to pay our creditors. Those who are in power, not the 85 freshmen are playing with fire, by threatening the general population of the country with threats like social security is not going to get paid. States are going bankrupt and there is no end in sight. Time we face facts and put on the breaks, take away the credit cards, close the checking accounts and look to the government to do the same. Time we helped ourselves and quit giving handouts to anyone who holds up their hand and is willing to back a politicians. Time to close the legal loop holes that allow companies like GE to get away with making hundreds of billions of dollars and not pay a penny in taxes, and time that the federal government start looking at the long term of the country. In the end, the results of what happens will not affect us, most of us will be long gone and buried, but our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. And if it means that 85 new freshmen in congress puts a monkey wrench into the system of politics as usual, if it means that the country can no longer afford to pay out help to its people until a solid budget deal and plan is put into place, then perhaps a little pain now, is worth the prosperity of our children in the future and the continuing of our great nation.

I wish people would quit bringing up section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All it says, in a nut shell, is if the treasury gives you a check it's to be honored without question when you take it to a bank.

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
I wish people would quit bringing up section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All it says, in a nut shell, is if the treasury gives you a check it's to be honored without question when you take it to a bank.

But don't you see? THAT'S why Obama brought up social security "checks" to begin with. He just wants to lay the groundwork so that those checks will still be good. And the only way to make it so (Sorry Capt. Picard) is to have the president raise the debt ceiling.

Originally posted by inforeal
The Tea party is not going the route of Ron Paul and demanding the fed be reformed or abolished, they are just against the abuse of debt, nothing new or unreasonable.

So they aren't doing anything new or unreasonable, but according to the title you gave this thread and your OP they're "anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power." Seems to me that those are polar opposites. If they're being reasonable they aren't abusing power. If they are abusing power, they aren't reasonable. So which is it?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
I wish people would quit bringing up section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All it says, in a nut shell, is if the treasury gives you a check it's to be honored without question when you take it to a bank.

But don't you see? THAT'S why Obama brought up social security "checks" to begin with. He just wants to lay the groundwork so that those checks will still be good. And the only way to make it so (Sorry Capt. Picard) is to have the president raise the debt ceiling.

Debt is currently 98% of GDP, you need to do some research and find out historicaly what happens when a countrys debt is > than 100% of GDP which it will be if you raise the debt ceiling... you get hyperinflationery debt spiraling... Greece went above 100% of GDP..they had to get bailed out..ireland went above 100% GDP..they had to get bailed out...Portugal went above 100% GDP...they had to get bailed out..differnce is they had someone to bail them out,namely the other EU member states,the USA hasnt anyone to bail it out.. thats your problem.
hyperinflation in laymans terms ? a weekly wage wont be enough to feed your family. because your dolller will be worth less than toilet paper.