the "issue" is as you mentioned, we borrow more than we can afford. we need congress to make a budget that will start to lower our debt, and at the same time we need to create jobs to make that happen faster. the only way we can stop borrowing more than we spend is if we cut spending as a percentage of the amount of tax revenue our government takes in. if you're looking for specifics of where we should cut, i probably couldn't budget our government myself, but it's common sense that a substantial amount of money our government spends isn't absolutely vital, and we can do without. unless you'd like to get down to nuts and bolts and explain how every penny we spend is worth our rapidly increasing debt.

each time i try to take your points to the next level of conversation you just revert back to parallel talking points.  its what politicians do when they just want their broader statements to drum up support without having to substantiate anything.

in case you didn't fully understand my last poop, i openly invited you to get into the "nuts and bolts" that you want to talk about, budget the government!

before talking about the debt, we need to at least set a few definitions, or guidelines, or general rule-of-thumbs. 
should the government run a debt at all?
if so how much?  is this in terms of a flat amount?  a percentage of gdp?  just what the current president is responsible for?

.if we want to just blatantly talk about the debt then we have to look at what bush started and push that forward into today.  2 wars didnt start in the last 3 years.  but abruptly ending 2 wars would have left a vacuum that would have conceivably done more harm than good.  in short, are the obligations left to you from the previous administration taken into account?
.the bush tax cuts were an absurd thing, to fight 2 wars and cut taxes.  who thinks fighting 2 wars on credit is a good thing?  obama fucked up by extending those, but once a tax break in implemented if its clearly permanent it a future tax increase (insert payroll tax cut for current context).
.are we allowed to talk about the revenue problem in regards to the increases?  is the starve the beast policy which has been the GOP goal since the 80s admissible? 
.how do we take into account previous spending commitments into todays picture?
.should we consider that the debt ceiling can be automatically raised without a vote if we want it to, or just make it a prominent issue today?

no one thinks "debt" is a good thing, unless you are from a time where inflation covered your interest obligations (this is partially why people from the 70s-90s racked up the debt they did).

We should elect for president

this was me asking you to define your positions so anything meaningful could commence. the debt is a convenient vehicle to use whenever the spending is clearly popular to one side. as a percentage of gdp our debt is only slightly larger than what some economists (keynesian no doubt) would argue is the sweet spot (this is on a yearly basis, clearly the total debt).

and ill leave another question. why should i, as a "middle class american" be happy that we fought 2 wars for 10 years, gave huge tax breaks to the "job creators", and now that our government is strapped for cash its middle class america that needs to tighten our belt and clearly the fat cats that profited from the policies of the last 10 years?

i humor you with responses because that what i do, even though you seriously are nothing more than a politician on camera.

clearly really, you're accusing me of clearly bringing up any substantial topic when if you brought one up yourself i'd be happy to tell you what i think

i dont know exactly what values you think i implied we need to abandon, or which constitutional fundamentals you think i implied we need to abandon, or what you think im coping out on, or even which checks and balances you think i implied we need to abandon; i implied nothing other than social conservatism, as a core political stance, is regressive. it allows nothing that the bible does clearly state and ignores the fact the bible, when taken literally, leads to a westbro baptist mentality. most people cherry-pick which they want to adhere to and which they feel is just outdated and does clearly apply. to claim otherwise is just clearly being honest to oneself.

obama didnt lie per se, but he did do as all politicians do which is embellish what they "will do once in office". its what politicians do. and other than the transparency of government and the middle class he has actually followed through on foreign policy as he stated he would. but he has been fought every step of the way by the establishment (as will paul) because they dont play ball with everyone. obama was a constitutional expert, i doubt he is in over his head. he is certainly playing his cards for reelection (right or wrong).

one of the biggest obstacles ronnie has is his stance of "states rights", which is clearly applicable in the same manner today as it was pre-civil war. i dont care what the constitution said, its just used as fodder when the proposed topic is opposed. if the constitution was the core everyone wants to think it is then civil rights should be repealed and let states decide if seth needs his own drinking fountain and if he can ride the bus home from the welfare office (hi seth). we can also just cancel social security, income tax, federal subsidies, transportation spending, and basically anything else you can think of thats clearly directly tied to the military. in todays world this is just clearly applicable. and if you just cherry-pick which are and which are clearly applicable then you are no better than the current crop of GOP who choose when to whine about big government while actually depending on it.

with that said if i had to choose a GOP candidate id choose ronnie. i think he could do a lot of good. but i absolutely disagree with supply-side economics and the allusion of a free market that corrects its own mistakes (i wont even begin on the topic that the scope of a corporation of todays world is as inconceivable to the authors of the constitution as the internet would be).

Who made him this expert you

obama was a constitutional expert

If Obama is a Constitutional expert, then he's a conscious hypocrite. His actions do clearly represent his expertise, and there's simply no debating that.

a. if its unconstitutional then the courts will strike it down
b. the court is on the take and allow it

theres clearly debating that

Obama is playing his cards well. I'd really like to see him pushing his powers a lot more, but he has been slowly making progress on a lot of objectives. Making steady progress doesn't satisfy his progressive patrons, but they have basically no other choice but to vote for him in the general election. A lot of people hate him, but clearly as much as they hate the other options.

He has been more moderate than his election promises, but with the deadlock of congress on pretty much everything, his second-term attitude will be stronger.
-Second term presidents have no concerns about re-election
-Tea Party is burning itself out and setting up a huge public backlash
-Republican Party is embarassing itself and diminishing the credibility of both the candidates and status of "GOP Presidential Candidate"

He can revive much of the initial support he had and leverage it against the anti-conservative backlash, something along the lines of "I played your game, now lets play mine." Had he pushed his progressive stances harder, he wouldn't have this opportunity, but he can appeal both on his own merits and against the other guy.

What relevance does the credibility of the GOP candidates have at all? Obama is the prime example of "ignore it, and they will forget about it"

harvard magna cum laude
professor of law for 12 years

be smarter than the political rhetoric that gets thrown around. obama is an educated person, whom you just happen to absolutely hate for whatever reason. and running on the heals of W, who was nothing but the son of a rich guy who ran one company into the ground and lived on the coattails of his father, im sure why you would feel offended at the sight of a smart black man (who seeming loves to do foreign policy just like the previous american imperialists).

The big fallacy in your argument is that you're implying that the supreme court is the only source of true constitutional interpretation. Maybe Obama should have been a justice?

c. He got a taste of the power and compromised

Actually he was a lecturer. Part timmer no Tenure. They did ask him to become full time but he declined.

harvard magna cum laude
professor of law for 12 years

be smarter than the political rhetoric that gets thrown around.  obama is an educated person, whom you just happen to absolutely hate for whatever reason.  and running on the heals of W, who was nothing but the son of a rich guy who ran one company into the ground and lived on the coattails of his father, im sure why you would feel offended at the sight of a smart black man (who seeming loves to do foreign policy just like the previous american imperialists).

Obama is playing his cards well. I'd really like to see him pushing his powers a lot more, but he has been slowly making progress on a lot of objectives. Making steady progress doesn't satisfy his progressive patrons, but they have basically no other choice but to vote for him in the general election. A lot of people hate him, but clearly as much as they hate the other options.

He has been more moderate than his election promises, but with the deadlock of congress on pretty much everything, his second-term attitude will be stronger.
-Second term presidents have no concerns about re-election
-Tea Party is burning itself out and setting up a huge public backlash
-Republican Party is embarassing itself and diminishing the credibility of both the candidates and status of "GOP Presidential Candidate"

He can revive much of the initial support he had and leverage it against the anti-conservative backlash, something along the lines of "I played your game, now lets play mine." Had he pushed his progressive stances harder, he wouldn't have this opportunity, but he can appeal both on his own merits and against the other guy.

http://factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-const...-law-professor/
herp

/implying that i liked george w but clearly obama
/implying because i dont like obama i must be an american imperialist

dID YOU BOTHER READYING PAST THE FIRST line

Joe I'd vote for you over Obama

i dont want to seem to stick up for obama. hes clearly been what i wanted out of a non-republican president. but he was delt a shitty hand also. the tarp bail outs should have been done by bush, but he wanted none of that on his hands. the spending bill was full of pork by everyone in washington. everyone.

all i want is a fiscal realist with a non-regressive social stance. wheres my candidate?

edit: and a candidate who does clearly feel like "more police, more restrictions on people and less on businesses, and a unrealistic starve-the-best approach

How about Just enough police to keep ppl safe, less restrictions on people less on bussiness and less Government jobs...

while I think everyone agrees with the less, its defining where the less should come from and how much less. and when we say less restrictions on people, i personally think of the patriot act, the recently signed NDAA (which im clearly convinced the little disclaimer added at the end really protects citizens from its reach). im quite certain others think of something different. probably taxes. and i dont see restrictions on business as always bad. i like the idea of letting business be business but without pointing out each specific restriction and backtracing it to why it was implemented in the first place id be hard-pressed to have a legitimate opinion. the same goes for government jobs. to just say "cut government jobs" seems to me a little too charged rhetoric. which jobs/departments? how much effect will that actually have in the bottom line and why is that our focus?

and speaking of business, i find it funny in a country that loves to tout the "small business" horn we give every benefit to big business and fuck the little guy over with regressive policies that benefit the big guy with limited competition.

You win im done

i dont want to win per se, i want to have discussion that goes past the talking points and into the legitimate grey area that gets skimmed over so often.
to elaborate, you spoke of personal freedoms. what would rick santorum feel is a personal freedom compared to, well, anyone else really? its the common ground that separates us, but its does clearly mean we need to be enemies. i generally have to remind myself that people who disagree are clearly the enemies of america, just people who see a different path.

first soc class today, professor went on an interesting [and obviously biased] tangent about how class warfare is/has been defined and i thought of this toilet for some reason and then i took a step back and evaluated my life and why the fuck was i thinking about this toilet so peace guys ok

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/jon-hunts...g-your-country/
something that should highlight whats right and wrong in todays political theater, but will just be a footnote in huntsman fading away

I like the analogy given that serving your country in the military under a Democrat president isn't seen as anti-Republican.