Interesting, you criminalize my statements as something from Fox news and spew the same rhetorical BS from the otherside of the fence. To point specifically, the countries of Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands either have been forced to the brink of economic disaster by those policies, or have forgone other functions in the hope that countries such as the United States will step in when some ideological idiot attempts to hurt them.

The states you mention have the programs they do, as well as different from the United States, in terms of the share of income taxed to pay for social programs. Not military spending or roads or postal service, but such social spending as welfare, unemployment benefits, public pensions, public health care, and public schools. This explains why countries like Sweden tax and spend over half of gross domestic product (GDP), while countries like the United States tax and spend less than forty percent. In other words, big government means the welfare state.

A welfare state, alias a big-government democracy, is one in which government spending on those safety nets and human investments takes more than a fifth of GDP. The leading examples are the Nordic countries, Austria, and the Netherlands. By contrast, less than fifteen percent of GDP is devoted to government safety nets and human investments in the low-tax and low-spending countries, especially the United States, Japan, and Switzerland.

Your arguements are baseless Sin, and designed to incite both anger (yes, your arguement is designed to do this, based on repeated counter arguements that are as hypocritcal and biased as the ones you state I and others are using.)

They are also coming from what source? Simply your own perspectives makes them as baseless as anyone elses. You have neither evidence, nor contrary data which suggest your perspective is anything beyond liberal rhetoric itself.

Since the only body of the government who can enact laws, and by extention, enforce them, is the Legislative branch, your argument is mute, since the President does not have the power or authority to create or enforce any such nonsense.

Now, please return to whatever country you sprang from and enjoy life there, outside of these nasty debates in which your socialist agenda is so rightly ignored. Since your only point was to prove that the Constitution gave President Obama the power to enact entitlement programs, you actually have lost, as you put it, since we have shown he does not have the power to do this.


[Linked Image from nodiatis.com]