- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,957
- Reaction score
- 60,487
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I wonder where Ruth is anyway? :sun
Nick Danger reference?
I wonder where Ruth is anyway? :sun
Brilliant..........
........Their objections were political....but it was not based on politics..........
Liberalism at its finest........
.
.
.
Obam and Reid explain that their objections are political, and not based on any ideological opposition to raising the debt
I am correct
Nick Danger reference?
You must have imagined that I said it was not based on politics because I said the exact opposite.
rightwingerism at its normal
they put at risk the full faith and credit of the united states for politics?
no...
leadership, anyone?
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.........
.
.
.
.
.
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.
Never happened
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Congress shall have Power...to borrow money on the credit of the United States
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.
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.
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 ..
Except now we would not have those problems if republicans had not kept kicking the can down the street.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/us/politics/13fiscal.html
Hopes Dwindling for Compromise in Budget Talks
Some people never learn.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.