Mostly because the debate essentially boils down to "It is okay to take what I have not earned or paid for" vs "Fuck that noise". All the jabber is just to confuse the issue so nobody has to take a long, hard look at what they fundamentally believe.
And no, I'm not just dissing liberals here. That applies to corporate protectionism and plenty of the current conservative platform items too.
Humorous but untrue. Objectivism is easily looked up in the dictionary or understood from Rand's works, as opposed to what constitutes a True Scotsman. In every one of her works you'll find extreme individualism and disgust with government protectionism of any kind.
I'm an objectivist of sorts and I see zero problem with infinite goods and zero marginal cost distribution. Value of a product or service comes from the purchaser not the seller because capitalism and objectivism demand free exchange of equal value. If nobody values your shit, you'd better rethink your business plan.
Objectivism isn't about businesses, it's about individuals. The people you're thinking about are fucktards, not objectivists, no matter what they call themselves.
It's pretty simple to see on both the income redistribution front and the paid for protectionism that we are NOT a capitalist society.
Were we a capitalist society, a zero marginal cost world would mean nothing at all to capitalism. There is always something scarce to sell, even if it is only good service for an infinite good. Capitalists do not piss and moan that nobody buys buggy whips, they start selling them to mistress spanks-a-lot then realize she uses a lot of other leather items and sells her those too.
That's not in the current corporate business model. If you're leveraged to the hilt and want to borrow more money for something, you have to drive stock prices up. In a non-growth industry, this means bilking the consumers a bit more to fake growth and hoping not enough of them leave to offset the gain.
Can you show me the law he rewrote or ignored? As near as I can tell, actual dates of implementation were not in the law itself.
Subtitle B, Section 1101, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, paragraph a. He had no legal authority to extend that January 1 deadline but did, first to January 31 and then to March 15.
Spending bills and the budget are similar but not the same thing. Some things Congress just slaps a big wad of fungible money in the executive's hands and some it spells out specifically where the money has to go. Regardless, we would both have to read both to find out for certain which of us is correct. I don't know about you, but reading a large chunk of Obamacare was plenty for me for the day.
There are limits on executive orders, etc. so no, he's not a dictator.
Nice in theory but that's not how they're being used under the current administration. Just in the past few months they've been used to change Congressionally passed law to something that better suits the administration re: Obamacare, changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the province of Congress, creating succession orders for several departments of government, changing pay rates all over the place, etc...
Have a look at the rest with an eye for "Does this power belong in the executive?"