djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 12:38:03 GMT -5
Why doesn't Obama use the 14th Amendment and issue an executive order to raise the debt limit again as suggested by former President Clinton ??..... i dunno. ttbomk he has not even MENTIONED it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 12:39:32 GMT -5
Is Obama hesitant to raise the debt ceiling because he doesn't want to see another budget crisis just before his re election in 2012? that is what the talking heads say. but i respectfully disagree. i think that he doesn't want to waste any more time on it during his term.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 25, 2011 12:44:10 GMT -5
This is the second time this week that I have heard Obama say something to the effect that the sooner they cut the debt and deficit, the sooner they can start looking at new programs that will "invest" in the future. Isn't that the same as saying, "The sooner I loose weight, the sooner I can have a donut"? Here's what he said: "If you're a progressive, you should want to get our fiscal house in order because once we do, it allows us then to have a serious conversation about the investments (Obama's code word for spending money) we want to make like infrastructure, like rebuilding our roads and bridges and airports (more of those shovel-ready projects), like investing in college education, like making sure that we're focused on the kinds of research and technology that's going to help us win the future. It's a lot easier to do that when we've got our fiscal house in order." What is going to help us "win the future" and "get our fiscal house in order" is when Obama stops playing games and lays out what taxes and regulations that he will/will not impose on businesses so that they can PLAN how THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD to expand and CREATE jobs. Obama already blew billions and billions of dollars of OUR money (YOURS and MINE) in an attempt to "spend our way to prosperity". That's billions and billions of dollars that now have to be paid back WITH INTEREST over the next 10, 20, , years. The ONLY way that we are going to be able to pay that debt is to cut all unnecessary spending (no frills - just like millions of Americans are doing as they sit around their kitchen tables looking at their own budgets) and to expand the tax base through job creation so that the revenue is provided by corporations by providing jobs to private citizens who in turn PAY TAXES: income taxes and payroll taxes (social security and medicare). Government jobs (with all due respect to government workers) suck money FROM THE government; private sector jobs provide money TO THE government. K to you!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 13:03:35 GMT -5
"moving the goal posts" That's exactly what I said. Negotiating with Obama is like negotiating with a schoolyard bully. Kudos to you, Mr. Boehner. If you were here I'd give you a Karma. New York Times writing today we have a dysfunctional President, Naive is the wrong word. wait- you are actually quoting the Communist Times here? wonders never cease.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 25, 2011 14:21:45 GMT -5
On the fundamental issues the Tea Party backed Republicans are having much more impact on these two parties then almost anyone predicited. If they were not in office right now we would have raised this limit without a second thought to the dire consequences our children and country will pay in the long term. Long live any party who can change the way Washington does business.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 25, 2011 15:01:11 GMT -5
On the fundamental issues the Tea Party backed Republicans are having much more impact on these two parties then almost anyone predicited. If they were not in office right now we would have raised this limit without a second thought to the dire consequences our children and country will pay in the long term. Long live any party who can change the way Washington does business. Booyah! Excellent...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 25, 2011 15:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 15:26:11 GMT -5
i don't know which is worse. the folks that think shutting down the government is a legitimate act of governance, or the cheerleaders for the shutdown.
but i am starting to care less and less. i almost hope that it goes as badly as i expect it to.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 25, 2011 15:27:44 GMT -5
Boehner and the Republicans have made detailed proposals again and again but the Obama camp just doesn't seem willing to listen, and instead keeps trying to make those proposals into something that they are not, and hopefully never will be The president keeps moving the goal posts. - John Boehner Why doesn't Obama use the 14th Amendment and issue an executive order to raise the debt limit - P.I. I've heard that Harry Reid is planning to block anything Republicans have to offer which will engineer things so that Obama can do just that. Which may have prompted this: “I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.” – Congressman Allen West Then a pundit chimed in: Rep. West is proud to be a Republican and he can’t figure out how or why anyone would want to share the label of “Democrat” considering the ineptitude of leadership that party has demonstrated since taking control of government. He can’t figure out what bizarro-land of blissful ignorance one must be from to still support President Obama after living with the consequences of having hope and faith in him in 2008. - - The pundit said - I get that. I agree with that.- And there's more from Congressman West: It was appalling to hear the President of the United States truly threaten our nation’s senior citizens and Military Veterans/Retirees. Furthermore, the blatant lie that 80% of Americans want their taxes raised is beyond unconscionable.
I believe we are headed towards the ultimate ideological clash in America. There is a widening chasm which has developed between those who believe in principled fiscal policies and those desiring the socialist bureaucratic nanny-state. An unfortunate aspect to this is the complicity of a mainstream media which does not report facts, but rather ideological bias. This clash will determine the future and legacy of our Constitutional Republic.
I know who wins in the end, but it is going to be one heck of a fight. republicanredefined.com/2011/07/20/allen-west-anyone-with-an-obama-2012-bumper-sticker-is-a-threat-to-the-gene-pool/
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 25, 2011 15:33:53 GMT -5
On the fundamental issues the Tea Party backed Republicans are having much more impact on these two parties then almost anyone predicited. If they were not in office right now we would have raised this limit without a second thought to the dire consequences our children and country will pay in the long term. Long live any party who can change the way Washington does business. It sure is nice to think that the people elected to do a job will do the job the people who elected them want done. remains to be seen if they can pull it off, but if they do, my hat'll be off to them.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 25, 2011 15:37:42 GMT -5
It looks as if we have dueling plans ...one by Boehner and one by Reid but as expected Obama favors the one by Reid since it kicks the can down the road past the 2012 elections which he insisted on I guess?? To call this whole mess a big farce would be giving a big farce a bad name..
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 25, 2011 15:58:22 GMT -5
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 25, 2011 17:23:24 GMT -5
It looks as if we have dueling plans ...one by Boehner and one by Reid but as expected Obama favors the one by Reid since it kicks the can down the road past the 2012 elections which he insisted on I guess?? To call this whole mess a big farce would be giving a big farce a bad name.. Well, of course, it's called Chicago politics at it's best being born and raised in the Windy City. Oh Yikes, not another teleprompter speech tonight. Please, just get this over and done with, one way or another.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 25, 2011 17:33:21 GMT -5
Rep. West is proud to be a Republican and he can’t figure out how or why anyone would want to share the label of “Democrat” considering the ineptitude of leadership that party has demonstrated since taking control of government. He can’t figure out what bizarro-land of blissful ignorance one must be from to still support President Obama after living with the consequences of having hope and faith in him in 2008. - - The pundit said - I get that. I agree with that.-
Love this quote~ brilliant!
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 25, 2011 17:56:24 GMT -5
Negotiating with the schoolyard bully can be defined thusly: As Boehner readied his legislation, Senate Democratic leaders called a news conference to announce their own next steps. . . . .
. . . . . . and Obama readied a prime-time, nationally televised speech on short notice. Maybe the whole country will be watching.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jul 25, 2011 18:01:58 GMT -5
“I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.” – Congressman Allen West
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 25, 2011 18:22:22 GMT -5
Who will take the blame will be obvious by mid August is my guess. I am an independent but if I were a betting man I would say the Dems. Many including some dems are fed up. Not to forget all the unemployed. The story of it is all Bushs fault has worn out quicker than a pair of cheap sneakers with a lot of the public. I know some very generous Dems who are quitely putting their money behind a person they want to run for the senate in 2012 and he is not a Dem.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 25, 2011 18:50:19 GMT -5
Why doesn't Obama use the 14th Amendment and issue an executive order to raise the debt limit again as suggested by former President Clinton ??..... Because the 14th amendment gives no such power to the President. Only Congress has the authority "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or to designate another entity to do so on there behalf, the debt ceiling is the expressed wishes of Congress to allow the Treasury to borrow up to a certain amount , but no more. The 14th amendment only says that current debt must be paid and since we have adequate resources without borrowing anymore money to meet that obligation there would be no justification for the President usurping congressional power. Some have argued that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional, I doubt it is, but I suspect that if it was that would not in fact mean the President would be able to borrow money as desired, just that Congress would have to approve each and every new debt.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jul 25, 2011 22:33:36 GMT -5
Isn't it a shame that the new boy still doesn't understand how things work in America? After all these years he seems unable to give all Americans an even break. I'm beginning to think he'll never go very far in politics.
I watched him read from his teleprompter tonight. What a disaster! I don't think he likes a level playing field.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 25, 2011 22:43:34 GMT -5
Isn't it a shame that the new boy still doesn't understand how things work in America? After all these years he seems unable to give all Americans an even break. I'm beginning to think he'll never go very far in politics. I watched him read from his teleprompter tonight. What a disaster! I don't think he likes a level playing field. ...one thing that did strike me very odd in the POTUS speech tonight... it seemed like he described multiple times how Americans want compromise... how we remember great Americans who compromise... that this is the influence that is needed... ...I thought to myself, what about the influence of great Americans who know/knew when to take a stand and hold that line? like the Steelers? or the Continental Army?
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 25, 2011 22:48:09 GMT -5
Been There: he does not understand that Americans are tired of compromise especially when it comes to handing the government a blank check to either party. The public is just tapped out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 23:24:37 GMT -5
Why doesn't Obama use the 14th Amendment and issue an executive order to raise the debt limit again as suggested by former President Clinton ??..... Because the 14th amendment gives no such power to the President. Only Congress has the authority "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or to designate another entity to do so on there behalf, the debt ceiling is the expressed wishes of Congress to allow the Treasury to borrow up to a certain amount , but no more. The 14th amendment only says that current debt must be paid and since we have adequate resources without borrowing anymore money to meet that obligation there would be no justification for the President usurping congressional power. Some have argued that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional, I doubt it is, but I suspect that if it was that would not in fact mean the President would be able to borrow money as desired, just that Congress would have to approve each and every new debt. the debt ceiling has nothing to do with borrowing, per se. it has to do with honoring debt, which the 14th definitely covers. but i would agree with you on this one, fc. there is no way he wants to assume that much responsibility, unless he gets something in return for it. which, of course, he won't.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 25, 2011 23:34:52 GMT -5
Because the 14th amendment gives no such power to the President. Only Congress has the authority "To borrow money on the credit of the United States" or to designate another entity to do so on there behalf, the debt ceiling is the expressed wishes of Congress to allow the Treasury to borrow up to a certain amount , but no more. The 14th amendment only says that current debt must be paid and since we have adequate resources without borrowing anymore money to meet that obligation there would be no justification for the President usurping congressional power. Some have argued that the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional, I doubt it is, but I suspect that if it was that would not in fact mean the President would be able to borrow money as desired, just that Congress would have to approve each and every new debt. the debt ceiling has nothing to do with borrowing, per se. it has to do with honoring debt, which the 14th definitely covers. ...disagree...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 23:41:21 GMT -5
the debt ceiling has nothing to do with borrowing, per se. it has to do with honoring debt, which the 14th definitely covers. ...disagree... here is what it says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." it doesn't say that the president can borrow. it doesn't mention borrowing at all. it says that once and obligation is made, it shall not be questioned. i think that what congress is doing is questioning obligations. the president has a sworn oath to protect the constitution, and thus to protect our obligations, including our debt and pension obligations. sorry if you disagree, but i think it is actually fairly clear.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 25, 2011 23:47:30 GMT -5
...disagree... here is what it says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." it doesn't say that the president can borrow. it doesn't mention borrowing at all. it says that once and obligation is made, it shall not be questioned. i think that what congress is doing is questioning obligations. the president has a sworn oath to protect the constitution, and thus to protect our obligations, including our debt and pension obligations. sorry if you disagree, but i think it is actually fairly clear. ...what are you calling an obligation, then? ...because, imo, Congress passes and repeals "obligations" all the time... and the old adage of "paying our bills" doesn't discount the option to "undo some contracts" before a bill comes due...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 25, 2011 23:58:26 GMT -5
here is what it says: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." it doesn't say that the president can borrow. it doesn't mention borrowing at all. it says that once and obligation is made, it shall not be questioned. i think that what congress is doing is questioning obligations. the president has a sworn oath to protect the constitution, and thus to protect our obligations, including our debt and pension obligations. sorry if you disagree, but i think it is actually fairly clear. ...what are you calling an obligation, then? if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. ...because, imo, Congress passes and repeals "obligations" all the timeand the old adage of "paying our bills" doesn't discount the option to "undo some contracts" before a bill comes due... ... that is not the point at all. the point is that once congress has MADE an obligation, the 14th requires them to honor it. sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. they are simply saying "we ain't paying it". that is precisely what the 14th amendment precludes.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 26, 2011 0:02:39 GMT -5
...what are you calling an obligation, then? if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. ...because, imo, Congress passes and repeals "obligations" all the timeand the old adage of "paying our bills" doesn't discount the option to "undo some contracts" before a bill comes due... ... that is not the point at all. the point is that once congress has MADE an obligation, the 14th requires them to honor it. sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. they are simply saying "we ain't paying it". that is precisely what the 14th amendment precludes. ...then I think we're having two different conversations here... >>> if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. <<< ...we must raise the debt ceiling to do this? >>> sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. <<< ...and if we've seen anything from Congress, it's that they can vote something in during the 11th hour... correct?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2011 0:05:54 GMT -5
if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. ...because, imo, Congress passes and repeals "obligations" all the timeand the old adage of "paying our bills" doesn't discount the option to "undo some contracts" before a bill comes due... ... that is not the point at all. the point is that once congress has MADE an obligation, the 14th requires them to honor it. sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. they are simply saying "we ain't paying it". that is precisely what the 14th amendment precludes. ...then I think we're having two different conversations here... i don't think so. but let's see.>>> if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. <<< ...we must raise the debt ceiling to do this? no. only congress can engender the pensions and debts. but it is a constitutional requirement, by the 14th amendment, to make sure that once those things are committed to, that they are backed up by the full faith and credit of the US>>> sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. <<< ...and if we've seen anything from Congress, it's that they can vote something in during the 11th hour... correct? or out, yes. but until they do, they are on the hook. to fail to make it possible to honor their obligations is an abrogation (?) of constitutional duty. forgive me if i got that word wrong.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jul 26, 2011 0:22:12 GMT -5
...because, imo, Congress passes and repeals "obligations" all the time... and the old adage of "paying our bills" doesn't discount the option to "undo some contracts" before a bill comes due...
Congress doesn't pass or repeal obligations, Congress pass spending bills which if signed into law obligate the US. You don't repeal obligations, you retire them by paying them off. The same way you can't tell your electric company that you choose to no longer pay your bill. The battle being waged right now should be fought around the budget, not around legislation to pay our bills.
On a side note I was very surprised tonight to hear Boehner refer to Cut, Cap and Balance as bi-partisan legislation when only 5 democrats voted for it. More surprising is the fact that 2 republican candidates for president voted against CC&B.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 26, 2011 1:06:07 GMT -5
...then I think we're having two different conversations here... i don't think so. but let's see.>>> if we are talking the 14th, pensions and debts. <<< ...we must raise the debt ceiling to do this? no. only congress can engender the pensions and debts. but it is a constitutional requirement, by the 14th amendment, to make sure that once those things are committed to, that they are backed up by the full faith and credit of the US>>> sure, they can repeal it, but that has not been done, here. they are not repealing a damn thing. <<< ...and if we've seen anything from Congress, it's that they can vote something in during the 11th hour... correct? or out, yes. but until they do, they are on the hook. to fail to make it possible to honor their obligations is an abrogation (?) of constitutional duty. forgive me if i got that word wrong. ...then Congress failed to make it possible to honor said obligations by not pre-funding stuff, which, arguably, could be considered an abrogation of constitutional duty, correct?
|
|