• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McConnell Offers 'Backup' US Debt Limit Plan

Badmutha said:
Brilliant..........

........Their objections were political....but it was not based on politics..........

Liberalism at its finest........
.
.
.
Click to expand...

You must have imagined that I said it was not based on politics because I said the exact opposite.

rightwingerism at its normal
 
sangha said:
Obam and Reid explain that their objections are political, and not based on any ideological opposition to raising the debt
Click to expand...

they put at risk the full faith and credit of the united states for politics?

no...

leadership, anyone?
 
Redress said:
Nick Danger reference?
Click to expand...


Alright, another Firesign Theater fan!!!! I didn't really think anyone would get the reference! :sun
 
sangha said:
You must have imagined that I said it was not based on politics because I said the exact opposite.

rightwingerism at its normal
Click to expand...

Look all that is important.....is that we realize its only wrong if anyone without a (D) after their name does it.

When Obama objected to raising the debt limit......that was all good in the hood.........
.
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
Look all that is important.....is that we realize its only wrong if anyone without a (D) after their name does it.

When Obama objected to raising the debt limit......that was all good in the hood.........
.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have to resort to things that no one has said. Even Obama agrees that it was a mistake for him to oppose it
 
Redress said:
Except now we would not have those problems if republicans had not kept kicking the can down the street.

See, I can point fingers too.
Click to expand...

nothing new ... I've seen you do it before
 
sangha said:
Never happened
Click to expand...

Bull

*March 20, 2006: This was the last stand-alone debt limit vote on which then-Senator Obama voted. He
was one of 48 members to vote against the increase, which passed with 52 votes. And that vote was dead along party lines .. the 48 members voting against raising the debt ceiling were all democrats

n March 16, 006, then Illinois Senator Obama was opposed to hiking the ceiling, noting:*“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

Reid said:
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
 
sangha said:
True, but the reasons both Obama and Reid gave were not that they were opposed to any raising of the debt. Therefore, there is nothing hypocritical about their opposing one raising of the debt ceiling, while supporting another. Additionally, Obama admits that his opposition was a mistake. I don't recall any sitting republicans saying their support for raising the debt ceiling was a mistake
Click to expand...

breaks out laughing ........ and what else could he say at this point in time about his vote against raising the debt ???? Either he was wrong then .. . or he is wrong now ..
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/politics/13fiscal.html

Hopes Dwindling for Compromise in Budget Talks

The longtime conservative activist Brent Bozell encouraged followers online to call Mr. McConnell’s office, saying he had “betrayed the trust of the American people.” And Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate, tweeted, “McConnell’s plan is an irresponsible surrender to big government, big deficits and continued overspending.” Yet Mr. Gingrich is no stranger to the risks in a showdown with a president of the other party; in the mid-1990’s, as House speaker, he forced a government shutdown in a budget fight with President Bill Clinton that backfired against Congressional Republicans.
Click to expand...

Some people never learn.
 
rocket88 said:
Here's the problem with that logic:

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, somebody has to choose between making Social Security payments and the Defense Department making payroll. Go ahead, I'll let you choose. I like the idea of responsible government, but the time for that was a few years ago. Now, the responsible thing is to raise the ceiling, even though this will be difficult for some to do politically.

McConnell's being an asshat. He's just trying to deflect responsibility. Harry Reid, I understand, loves the idea because it means he doesn't have to take responsibility either. I've got news for these guys: YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY! Your job is to make hard choices and to be accountable to the people for that.
Click to expand...

Jeezy said:
How, exactly, is that a problem with my logic? I never said there wouldn't be difficult choices. That's why it's called "austerity." The idea that we could have done this "a few years ago" but not now is silly. Now is precisely the time to do it. Also, I don't buy the whole "It's either food for the poor or security for the helpless," approach. Not all government spending is completely necessary, so the choice you're presenting me with is more than a little bit silly.
Click to expand...

I think both of you are wrong and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 9, clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Click to expand...

Congress wrote the laws and affixed appropriations to same. The appropriations were scored by the appropriate committee in each chamber of Congress (for the House, the Weighs and Means Committee; for the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee). The bills were then scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who informs Congress how much their bill will actually cost - too much, not enough - among other things. If Congress doesn't go back and revised the numbers, as necessary, whose fault is it then really for putting this country in financial disarray? Congress knows just as the Treasury what's at stake here.

Congress made this mess. It's Congress' responsibility to do the right thing and clean it up!! The President has laid down the framework under which Congress has to work out their differences. Either they step up and meet the nation's financial obligations, or they've violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.

As per Sen. McConnell's proposal on handling the debt ceiling, IMO it's unconstitutional and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 8, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power...to borrow money on the credit of the United States
Click to expand...

This is one of Congress' enumerated powers. To delegate - correction...FORCE - this responsibility onto the President is a derelections of his duty as a U.S. Senator to uphold the Constitution. Nevermind that the process he's proposing IMO would also be unconstitutional. You can't approve a bill, send it to the President for signature, then turn around and write another bill affectively passing on Congress' emurated power to "borrow money on the credit of the U.S." to the President that way. As donaldsutherland points out in the OP, the bill Congress approves over a presidential veto must be the same bill they sent him in the first place! The trickery McConnel proposes is as Newt Gingrich says - R-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S!

Here's an article from MSN.com that better explains Sen. McConnell's proposal.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Deuce, Sangha - You are both right. When the debt ceiling was raised under Bush, there were some Democrats who pissed and moaned about it. However, the party as a whole voted overwhelmingly in support of it. Obama was one of those who pissed and moaned, but I never liked him anyways. LOL. On the other hand, the GOP is threatening to slice the throat of America if they don't get their way, and this appears to be the party as a whole, and that is the difference.
Click to expand...

yeah? well Democrats are threatning to Burn America Alive and then rape children!!!!





oh.

wait.

that's a really stupid way to "debate."

:) my bad.
 
BamaBrat said:
Because voters have very short term memories. We forget that when a Rep ruled the white house, it was the democrats screaming that raising the debt ceiling was such a horrible thing to do. But now that a Dem rules the white house, seems they conveniently changed their minds. Same with Republicans...they all do it...each and every time... because we let them get away with it. Just like President Obama saying that not raising the debt ceiling was a lack of leadership and blah blah blah...hmmm...he conveniently forgot that when he got into office. Its why nothing ever gets done.
Click to expand...

The Barbarian said:
breaks out laughing ........ and what else could he say at this point in time about his vote against raising the debt ???? Either he was wrong then .. . or he is wrong now ..
Click to expand...

Its fine to feign your outrage (and even vote no, as long as your vote is moot), but actually failing to pass the debt limit increase is a crime against America.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Except now we would not have those problems if republicans had not kept kicking the can down the street.
Click to expand...

whole-heartedly agreed. I still find it difficult to forgive them for turning on Social Security reform back in 2005.
 
BDBoop said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/politics/13fiscal.html

Hopes Dwindling for Compromise in Budget Talks



Some people never learn.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the fight he ended up winning with clinton signing the budget and the left screaming how he caved. And today he trumpets it as his greatest achievement, hell gingrich was only one vote shy of passing a balanced budget amendment if I remember right. None of this would be necessary right now if it had gotten through.
 
Objective Voice said:
I think both of you are wrong and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 9, clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution:



Congress wrote the laws and affixed appropriations to same. The appropriations were scored by the appropriate committee in each chamber of Congress (for the House, the Weighs and Means Committee; for the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee). The bills were then scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who informs Congress how much their bill will actually cost - too much, not enough - among other things. If Congress doesn't go back and revised the numbers, as necessary, whose fault is it then really for putting this country in financial disarray? Congress knows just as the Treasury what's at stake here.

Congress made this mess. It's Congress' responsibility to do the right thing and clean it up!! The President has laid down the framework under which Congress has to work out their differences. Either they step up and meet the nation's financial obligations, or they've violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.

As per Sen. McConnell's proposal on handling the debt ceiling, IMO it's unconstitutional and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 8, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:



This is one of Congress' enumerated powers. To delegate - correction...FORCE - this responsibility onto the President is a derelections of his duty as a U.S. Senator to uphold the Constitution. Nevermind that the process he's proposing IMO would also be unconstitutional. You can't approve a bill, send it to the President for signature, then turn around and write another bill affectively passing on Congress' emurated power to "borrow money on the credit of the U.S." to the President that way. As donaldsutherland points out in the OP, the bill Congress approves over a presidential veto must be the same bill they sent him in the first place! The trickery McConnel proposes is as Newt Gingrich says - R-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S!

Here's an article from MSN.com that better explains Sen. McConnell's proposal.
Click to expand...

I've wondered about how his proposal could possibly be legal. Then again, how is it legal for anyone to single handedly decide what gets paid and what doesn't get paid. Congress appropriated the money, therefore it cannot be dis-appropriated without Congressional action.

So even though you said I was wrong, you get a "like."
 
Truckstop said:
Isn't that the fight he ended up winning with clinton signing the budget and the left screaming how he caved. And today he trumpets it as his greatest achievement, hell gingrich was only one vote shy of passing a balanced budget amendment if I remember right. None of this would be necessary right now if it had gotten through.
Click to expand...

Forgive my shallow understanding of the US Constitution, but I don't believe constitutional amendments can be lost by one vote in the House of Representatives. It seems to me there is a rather long, arduous (and perhaps impossible) process that involves agreement of 34 state legislatures.... The Balanced Budget Amendment has been and always will be nothing but a conservative fantasy. It will never happen (not to mention that it is a horrible idea, but that is another discussion)
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I think both of you are wrong and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 9, clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution:



Congress wrote the laws and affixed appropriations to same. The appropriations were scored by the appropriate committee in each chamber of Congress (for the House, the Weighs and Means Committee; for the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee). The bills were then scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who informs Congress how much their bill will actually cost - too much, not enough - among other things. If Congress doesn't go back and revised the numbers, as necessary, whose fault is it then really for putting this country in financial disarray? Congress knows just as the Treasury what's at stake here.

Congress made this mess. It's Congress' responsibility to do the right thing and clean it up!! The President has laid down the framework under which Congress has to work out their differences. Either they step up and meet the nation's financial obligations, or they've violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.

As per Sen. McConnell's proposal on handling the debt ceiling, IMO it's unconstitutional and here's why:

Art 1, Sect 8, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:



This is one of Congress' enumerated powers. To delegate - correction...FORCE - this responsibility onto the President is a derelections of his duty as a U.S. Senator to uphold the Constitution. Nevermind that the process he's proposing IMO would also be unconstitutional. You can't approve a bill, send it to the President for signature, then turn around and write another bill affectively passing on Congress' emurated power to "borrow money on the credit of the U.S." to the President that way. As donaldsutherland points out in the OP, the bill Congress approves over a presidential veto must be the same bill they sent him in the first place! The trickery McConnel proposes is as Newt Gingrich says - R-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S!

Here's an article from MSN.com that better explains Sen. McConnell's proposal.
Click to expand...

...that's great and all, but it has very little to do with what we were talking about. Never once did I address the constitutionality of the plan. We were talking about austerity in general.

Still waiting for a response to post #26.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else have this feeling that everyone in D.C. knows something we don't know? Ie, this is all one big ****ing game to all of them?
 
JohnWOlin said:
Does anyone else have this feeling that everyone in D.C. knows something we don't know? Ie, this is all one big ****ing game to all of them?
Click to expand...

Dark room.

Single shaded light.

Cigar smoke.

"They'd never suspect a black guy!"

BWAH HA HA HA HAAAA!
 
donsutherland1 said:
From CNBC:



News Headlines

Although the maneuver is creative, it would very likely be unconsitutional. Article I, Section 7 states:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

The reality is that Congress must authorize an increase in the debt ceiling. A maneuver in which the President vetoes Congress's disapproval of raising the debt ceiling will not provide that authorization in place of Congress. That Congress would fail to override the veto would not constitute authorization where authorization had not been set forth in legislation.
Click to expand...

McConnell is a buffoon. Why doesn’t he just ask the President to deem the legislation passed like the House did with health care?
 
I read it over again and thought about it: This is the Republicans way of letting Obama have his way, and show that they will not compromise with the president in anyways whatsoever. Basically, they can tell their voters its Obama's "fault" the debt ceiling is raised and they never technically broke their promises. Meanwhile, the nation goes on, debt ceiling raised no strings attached. Hey, could of had $3 cuts for every $1 revenue but, we'll take nothing instead. Sounds reasonable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom