# Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.

Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com

President Obama let his frustration over the stalled debt talks seep into an address on Latino issues on Monday, confessing that hed like to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. 

What does sound like he wants to be? That's right, a dictator. I guess we will find out tonight.


----------



## FuelRod (Jul 25, 2011)

What does the 14th ammendment have to do with the debt ceiling?


----------



## Conservative (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> What does the 14th ammendment have to do with the debt ceiling?



nothing I can see.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 25, 2011)

Never let a good crisis go to waste i guess. It's the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' Community Organizer way. Maybe Impeachment proceedings aren't so far-fetched after all?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

Good. This whole "crisis" is a blatant, disengenuous attempt to hold the country hostage to stupid ideology and electioneering...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 25, 2011)

Valerie said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming that IS what he tries to do, I have only one response.....
> ...



Nothing... it never does.


----------



## Anachronism (Jul 25, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Good. This whole "crisis" is a blatant, disengenuous attempt to hold the country hostage to stupid ideology and electioneering...



Ideology, truly believed in is NEVER stupid.... Show me what a man is willing to KILL and DIE for, and I'll show you what he believes in. Show me what he will compromise on and I'll show you what he never cared a whit about.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

McConnell told him what to do, since Tea Party moron fanatics are out of control, literally.So it's hardly even Obama's idea. When will these a-holes let the recovery continue?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing... it never does.
> ...



Thanks for the affirmation.  We can't figure out if you're a chronic drug abuser, and idiot or just jerking us all around.


----------



## Anachronism (Jul 25, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> McConnell told him what to do, since Tea Party moron fanatics are out of control, literally.So it's hardly even Obama's idea. When will these a-holes let the recovery continue?



Ever think that there area some of us who are not real high on THIS economy or THIS government recovering?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

I am sure that NSA is busily running all of your handles and threats against the president and country as we type here.

Let's see what happens.  If USAR is wrong, as I know he is, he is guilty of fomenting treason.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

The Senate will never Impeach but this would be a direct violation of the Constitution. The Democrats will stand behind him and VIOLATE the law of the land.

If he does as claimed two things should happen instantly. One the House should vote to Impeach him and let the Senate go on record as supporting the violation of the Constitution. Two the House Speaker should go to the closest Federal Court and file a law suit AGAINST Obama. He should demand that since it is in direct violation of the Constitution that the Supreme Court should be involved.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am sure that NSA is busily running all of your handles and threats against the president and country as we type here.
> 
> Let's see what happens.  If USAR is wrong, as I know he is, he is guilty of fomenting treason.



did you listen and watch the video? just wondering.


----------



## Anachronism (Jul 25, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am sure that NSA is busily running all of your handles and threats against the president and country as we type here.



Bring it on. Any time and anywhere. Better to be a dead Patriot, than a live slave which is what we're headed towards in this country.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...


 
There's a new sheriff (decider) in town.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that NSA is busily running all of your handles and threats against the president and country as we type here.
> ...



why don't you stfu? it is NEVER right to threaten.. it's so damn indecent and it makes you willfully stupid. If you don't like the country or feel you can't change it politically then move your ass out.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 25, 2011)

It's really sad how things turn out sometimes. All the fanatical Hopey Changey followers used to call George Bush a "Dictator." Well guess what? Bush wasn't even close. This current President behaves more & more like a maniacal Dictator everyday. It really is very sad.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 25, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> It's really sad how things turn out sometimes. All the fanatical Hopey Changey followers used to call George Bush a "Dictator." Well guess what? Bush wasn't even close. This current President behaves more & more like a maniacal Dictator everyday. It really is very sad.



did you watch and listen to the video?


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Senate will never Impeach but this would be a direct violation of the Constitution. The Democrats will stand behind him and VIOLATE the law of the land.
> 
> If he does as claimed two things should happen instantly. One the House should vote to Impeach him and let the Senate go on record as supporting the violation of the Constitution. Two the House Speaker should go to the closest Federal Court and file a law suit AGAINST Obama. He should demand that since it is in direct violation of the Constitution that the Supreme Court should be involved.



Um..Reagan and Bush directly violated the Constitution. You guys had no problem with it. None.

Invoking the 14 Amendment would not be a violation.

And I am pretty sure that's not what's going to happen tonight.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If Obama does what is claimed and it stands we can forget about a three tiered Government and a Republic. The Constitution will be useless. If the Democrats support this they are fomenting rebellion. If the House Impeaches and the Senate does not convict our Government is a shame.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



This is such a no-brainer, it's shocking that a once respectable publication like The National Journal would even jump into the ridiciculous fray. The 14th amendment REQUIRES that existing debt obligations be paid. 

OPERATIVE WORD: *EXISTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


Heres what the amendment actually 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 goes on to say]...But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

The Republican talking heads continue to assert that raising the debt ceiling gives the president carte blanche permission to continue to borrow more moneywithout the approval of Congressin order to keep paying off past loans. That is NOT the purpose, nor is it what would happen with a one-paragraph bill raising the debt ceiling this time around. 

Republicans are insisting on making this political by choosing to incorporate future budget propositions into this singular CONSTITUTIONAL requirement. *Enough!!! *

For Congress to limit the amount of the FUTURE debt has *NOTHING* to do with the debt that has been *already* authorized by law.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



The 14th threat could just be maniacal posturing but I wouldn't be surprised if BO would actually attempt to pull such a stunt...especially if he can't sweep the debt problem under the rug till after 2012 elections...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate will never Impeach but this would be a direct violation of the Constitution. The Democrats will stand behind him and VIOLATE the law of the land.
> ...



Provide any evidence of your claim. As to the President, he has no power to raise the debt limit, that is solely a function of Congress, and specifically must originate in the House. The 14th Amendment provides no Constitutional authority for him to usurp the Power of Congress.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> ...



You are wrong. The US Government CAN still pay the debt without a raise in the debt ceiling. Further the 14th does not say the Government MUST pay it says they may not deny the debt.

If Obama does this he is usurping the power of Congress and that is Unconstitutional.


----------



## FuelRod (Jul 25, 2011)

I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> ...



You might wanna check out section 5 of that amendment.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 25, 2011)

Obama isn't, and never has been, too interested in anything the Constitution has to say.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.



Read the powers of the branches of Government. Only Congress has the power to incur debt for the Government.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> hellofromwarsaw said:
> 
> 
> > Good. This whole "crisis" is a blatant, disengenuous attempt to hold the country hostage to stupid ideology and electioneering...
> ...



So our Founders didn't care about our form of representation.


----------



## FuelRod (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.
> ...



I don't think raising the ceiling is incurring debt.  I think it is subjective.  I get credit card offers in the mail everyday.  It's up to me (Congress) to decide to use them.

However the move as I see it is also political suicide for the President.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Anachronism said:
> ...



An armed insurgency against the US government is precisely what you right-wing extremists are itching for. Well the rest of us are ready, and we would soon find out who the traitors really are.

Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as ~~
*Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,* or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court..."

The Supreme Court ruled that there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...



keeeeee rist almighty people watch the video.. he said "that's not the way we do things here in America" the people in the crowd screaming "yes you can yes you can" were the treasonus ones.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.



The President of the United States does not have the authority to accept credit from any entity on behalf of the country. Only congress can.


----------



## Conservative (Jul 25, 2011)

Leweman said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



section 5 states: _The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article._

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of that section, or ANY section of the 14th, to the possibility of the President authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling without congress.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 25, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> Obama isn't, and never has been, too interested in anything the Constitution has to say.


 
He TAUGHT constitutional law.  I'm sure he understands if FAR better than Palin, Bachmann, and the so-called tea party purists who are always spouting off.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

In the heart of every progressive intellectual is the desire to be a dictator.

Obama is just true to form.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...



Oh...I see the point you are making.

Saying "we can borrow more" is not the same as actually borrowing more.

Yoiu are correct.

But what happens when it is time to borrow more?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



I called no one a traitor. Or perhaps you could highlight that part. I stated that if Obama does this is Impeached and the Senate does not convict our Constitution is null and void. And that the Democrats that support him are fomenting rebellion by openly violating the US Constitution.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > Obama isn't, and never has been, too interested in anything the Constitution has to say.
> ...



Are you sure he taught it?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

ScreamingEagle said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> ...



And yet you people fail to see that the Republicans are USING the debt problem for campaign posturing for 2012. 

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962. The debt ceiling tripled under Ronald Reagan, and Congress also raised taxes 11 times for him. Republicans voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling for George W. Bush.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



He blames Congress for not doing it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



Are you a member of the United States Supreme Court?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...




I'd like to see his lecture notes about how the 57 states apportion house seats and electoral votes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



was the debt at such a high percentage of GDP any other time?


----------



## jillian (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



yes.... 


and you wonder why i refer to the extremists as rightwingnuts...

oh...and before you make the same comment yet again... all conservatives are NOT rightwingnuts.... 

just rightwingnut extremists are.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Leweman said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



Indeed, Congress shall have the power to "enforce" _*the payment of the debt obligation*_. That would come into play if we had a president who refused to do it (vice versa from the current situation, in other words).


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Did you bother to read the 14th? It leaves to Congress the power to enforce it NOT the President. SO even if it did ( and it does not) say what you claim, it delegates the power BACK to Congress. Once again if Obama attempts to usurp powers granted by the Constitution to the Congress he is in direct violation of the Constitution. AN Impeachable offense that is sustained by his own public actions. If the Senate refused to vote guilty then those so voting would be supporting the violation of the Constitution. Our Government would cease to be a Republic and would no longer be of the people.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


I'm just dying to hear him regale us on the part of the Constitution that talks about "spreadin' the wealth around".


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.
> ...



And they already did, which is what this is all about. What part of that can't you grasp?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 25, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...


...or blames Bush.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

FuelRod said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...





Here's where you are incorrect.  The U.S. is in the situation of someone who keeps getting new credit cards to pay the interest on his maxed out ones.

Are we broke yet?













How much money is in the federal bank account? These two graphs, updated daily, tell the story. - By Chris Wilson - Slate Magazine


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

jillian said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



and how are you sure he taught it?

And by the way....then according to you, anyone right of center is an extremist.

IU have been reading your posts as of late and I have lost all respect for you. Anyone you disagree with is a wing nut.....it tends to get old


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



sounds like the Republicans are getting exactly what they wanted to me.
And escalated fuss with no concern towatrds what is best for America.
Just what is best for republicans.


----------



## jillian (Jul 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



and i'm just dying to hear something that actually represents the letter and spirit of the constitution from the obama deranged.

so there ya go.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...



What part can not you grasp that the 14th provides no power to the President? It regulates enforcement of said Amendment TO THE CONGRESS. Any attempt by the President to usurp powers given by the Constitution to Congress IS High Crimes and misdemeanors. His very actions would prove the case.


----------



## shintao (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



It has to do with equality, and taking from the poor to give to the rich in their con game is not equality.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. 

You wouldn't recognize a dictator if your were giving him a bj.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Which claim?

Reagan violated the Constitution at least twice, seriously, with Iran Contra.

Bush violated the Constitution with his order to torture prisoners, suspending Habeas on both foreign and domestic captures and easedropping on private citizens.

And the 14th..



> *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*. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.



That basically covers it. But it's doubtful that he would use it until after August 2nd.


----------



## shintao (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Yes, we need a good impeachment while we are engaged in two wars and the economy teeters on the brink of collapse. Go for it.............LOL!


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> hellofromwarsaw said:
> 
> 
> > McConnell told him what to do, since Tea Party moron fanatics are out of control, literally.So it's hardly even Obama's idea. When will these a-holes let the recovery continue?
> ...





Whoa!  Anachromism is banned?  Did his ignore list break the forum code base?


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

Leweman said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



Spot on Leweman. Section 5 is the key and if Obama overrides it, then he has usurped the Constitution and will be impeachable. Section 5 states:

[The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.]

This man is actually what our founders warned us about when framing Article 2 Section 1. I am telling you and have been that this man is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office. The framers specifically drafted Article 2 Sect 1 for allegiance purposes only. That's why they wanted a president who was born a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen parents where undivided born loyalty to his nation could never be questioned. With Obama being born to a British National father ,which gave him as a child born dual citizenship with allegiance to the British Crown, it is apparent his heart is not devoted to America and its people first, only to himself. That is what founder John Jay (1st Supreme Court Justice) warned George Washington about  when framing the constitutions presidential clause, having a president with foreign allegiance. Well, it looks like Jay was right. Obama is going to usurp the 14th amendment in order to try to save his reelection chances first and foremost instead of putting the American people and the nation first. Bypassing Congress is doing just that.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 25, 2011)

> *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.*



Red herring...Non sequitur.

Nobody is questioning the validity of federal debt....Just the size of it.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > hellofromwarsaw said:
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a supporter of this current President however I do not see that he can not raise the ceiling by himself.  The way I see the Debt Ceiling, it is an approval of credit.  No money is actually being spent.  The Congress will still approve spending.
> ...



Huh? Where'd that come from? It makes no sense.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> > *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.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And?

It needs to be paid.


----------



## jillian (Jul 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> > *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.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you can't question one without the other. you're either in or out... 

congress has already appropriated the money that we owe. what is UNconstitutional is not honoring our debt and jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the U.S.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 25, 2011)

Ever think that there area some of us who are not real high on THIS economy or THIS government recovering?


True this economy cannot recover it is done.  We must make and grow a different economy to have any real and lasting growth.

But alas very few have learned anything about where we really are yet.
And those who do know and are in power are scared shitless to speak about it.

However that is one party who does not want the economy to grow until they are back in power, and that is a tottally different issue and very despicable and even traitorous.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *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.*
> ...





And taking on even more debt is a good way to pay it?

How many maxed out credit cards do you have?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Reagan was NEVER connected to Iran Contra even after the Dems in Congress claimed they could. Further Iran Contra was not a violation of Congressional orders.

Weapons were sold to Israel legally. Israel sold said weapons through private citizens and gave the money to Oliver North and Admiral Pointdexter. Once Israel took possession of said weapons what happened to them and any money generated by Israel no longer belongs to the US Government. If a foreign Government donates money to pay for something then the order by Congress that no tax payers money be used is not violated.

As for Bush he ordered no torture. Waterboarding which is the only claim you have to torture, was not illegal until Holder made it so in 2009. In fact it was practiced on our own troops in training cycles.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 25, 2011)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's what we're currently witnessing with this President. A real Train Wreck for sure.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 25, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *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.*
> ...



apparently you can or there would be no debt ceiling to debate.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 25, 2011)

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *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.*
> ...


Wrong.

The feds will take in between $2 - $2.5 trillion this year....All of the bills can be paid if they get serious about cutting spending.

Them's the facts.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

shintao said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Well it didn't stop them when we had a dangerous terrorist named Osama Bin Laden running around.

Why would it stop them now?

Third impeachment..third Democrat. All for trivial reasons.

Bodes well moving forward...that no Republican Presidents have ever gotten impeached.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



The "debt" obviously is larger than the "revenue" we *currently* have in the Treasury to continue to pay for EXISTING debt. Therefore, legally, in order to not default on that EXISTING debt, the ceiling must be raised. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "new" debt. Nothing, nada, zip.

It's as it you went over the credit limit on your credit card. You still have to pay those extra charges, but you would be cut off from charging anything further. That is ALL raising the debt "ceiling" does too.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You're officially an idiot.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related]&#x202a;Telling Lies&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





There's also something like $2.4T of bond/IOUs stuffed into the SS lockbox.  Treasury can redeem them, which lowers the official level of debt, and then sell new debt on the open market without having to raise the debt ceiling.

If we default, it's a political decision, not a financial one.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 25, 2011)

Iran contra?  why did Bush I pardon all involved bot indicted and unincdicted?
Which incluede himself btw


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



We haven't gone over our limit yet.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



Once again for the slow and stupid. The Government takes in enough revenue to pay the debt without rising the debt ceiling. And also to repeat, NO ONE is questioning the VALIDITY of the debt.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?


----------



## shintao (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Rewrite of History. Did you author the book, "The Other America?"


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?



Something about violating the Constitution and conservatives not caring when a Republican President does it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The only way a president can be impeached is for treason or that vague clause "high crimes and misdemeanors." Since none of the actions here would constitute a "high crime" nor a "misdemeanor" crime, then you obviously must have been referring to treason. 

I suggest you actually study the Constitution some day. Soon.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?
> ...





And yet you're fine with Obama violating it.

Got it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Yes, let's impeach him for a slip of the tongue. 

Idiot.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Is that a Constitutional consideration?


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Let me know when he violates it.

Or gets a blowjob from an intern. Something else Republicans hold as grounds for impeachment. (Well actually constitutional violations don't count to a conservative if you are a Republican with good hair)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You are the dumb one. If a President willfully violates the Constitution that most assuredly IS High Crimes and Misdemeanors.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?



 you got me, I missed how that came in.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?
> ...



Ohh thanks.
Well anyone with half a brain knows that republicans are only violating the constitution for the betterment of America.

That is anyone with only half a brain


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well if you want to get even pickier, the president has the option of vetoing any bill enacted by Congress. It would then take a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto. Yeah, let's go there while unemployment continues its slog the vast majority of Americans could really give a sweet shit about the debt limit and want those idiots in Congress (and private sector) to start doing something about the overall economy. Who do you think will get blamed for political stalling and creating gridlock? Again. The president? Think again.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



why the diversion?
Insecure about your position in the debate?

No one is saying it is unconstitutional for congress to raise the debt ceiling.

I commented on your post about how often the debt ceiling was raised by congress...

And my comment was a legit question.....

But I will ask it this way...

All of those othere times that the debt ceiling was raised....was it at a time where:

1) the existing debt was such a high percentage of our GDP
2) our exiosting debt increased at such a high rate


----------



## Conservative (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



i get all that. I guess I am taking the 14th too literally then...

Section 4. 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.
_So far, so good. I understand this._

 But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
_This is where I think people are hung up, and where I don't see the relevance. It  specifically discusses debt which is 'incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States' or 'any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave'._

_I read the next line 'all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void' to mean specifically those instance mentioned within the section..._

'incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave', _and ONLY for these types of debt._

Again, maybe I am being too literal?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



So you don't mind if Obama shreds the Constitution cause you like his ideas. Got it.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you don't mind if Obama shreds the Constitution cause you like his ideas. Got it.



So Sarge..still holding that Reagan wasn't involved even though he admitted that he was involved?

Man..Plausible deniability is a great thing!


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

Breaking News. This just in.


*Speaker John Boehner will go on National TV In A Rebuttal Speech Right After The Presidents Speech*


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And of course the fact that federal tax receipts are at the lowest level since Harry Truman was president don't fit in your little ejukational pichers.


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

More Breaking News Just In:


Speech Will Be Just 18 Minutes

Highlights will be according to CNN: President will say:

Number 1. *United States Is In Imminent Threat Of Default*

Number 2. *Congress Has Reached A Stalemate Forcing President To Bypass Congress And Take Matters Into Own Hands*

In other words he is fixing to usurp the Constitution just to save his reelection bid for a second term. Wolf Blitzer just stated this is a serious dangerous move from the president and will instill fear amongst the American people. This is Wolf saying this now and he is flabbergasted (astonished). Anyone remember the Reichstag Fire and decree Hitler used to his advantage?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Anachronism said:
> ...



If Obama uses the 14th, then he has to be opposed, politically.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Oh lordy, only a few years ago we had all sorts of right-wing arm-chair warriors telling us all how the Iraq war is going swimmingly and why. Now we've got all sorts of arm-chair lawyers and supreme court justice wannabes interpreting the Constitution for us over a clause that at best been IGNORED by both Republicans and Democrats for decades and at worst is being *used* now as just one more _perceived_ piece of ammunition against the current president. You people are so transparent it's downright hilarious.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Oddball said:


> > *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.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which will be dealt with immediately thereafter. D'Oh...

*Nobody* is questioning that the size of the debt or suggesting that it should go away. It simply should not be any part of _this particular issue_ for logical reasons.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> More Breaking News Just In:
> 
> 
> Speech Will Be Just 18 Minutes
> ...



I pray Wolf is wrong, period.  I cannot imagine your hero, Obama, using the 14th.  If so, he has to be opposed politically while isolating you wing nuts on the far, far right.  You are a potentially far greater threat than the president right now, but it sounds if he may be joining you wingos in loonyville.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Oh...My...God...Is there any point in discussing _anything_ with you? No. Bye.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "The biggest danger to the world economy is a bunch of Right Wing nuts in congress". The world is aghast at you moron Pub propaganda dupes....A-holes!!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's what we're currently witnessing with this President. A real Train Wreck for sure.



Republicans held majority power in all 3 branches for six years and they wielded absolute power. Short memory?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



Against the President?

Maggie Mae...let me explain something to you. This has nothing to do with Barrak Obama. This has to do with the way our government was designed.

We have a system where no one person can make a major decision that affects everyone...he/she may veto...yes...but he/she can not be the decider by himself/herself in FAVOR of a decision.

It is a sytem that works and all we need to do is sidestep it once and the integrity of our system will be compromised.

So please.....get off that whole "ODS" crap......this is serious stuff.

This has nothing to do with Obama.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.



yes...and for no other reason than we would never want any proesident of any party to think that he/she can be a sole decider on an issue.

We can not let a precedent of this magnitude be set.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Breaking News. This just in.
> 
> 
> *Speaker John Boehner will go on National TV In A Rebuttal Speech Right After The Presidents Speech*


Huge surprise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.
> ...



I am afraid that even once the Supreme Court rules it Unconstitutional the Democrats in the Senate will not endorse a guilty verdict.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Prove it. How much is just interest on that debt? What if we just started paying the principal on debt to China? What if they simply said no, that's not the deal, and called it all in by demanding payment in gold instead of paper? Do you ever THINK about possible repercussions? Obviously not.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And they will go down as a party that allowed the president to break the law striclty becuase the president was of their party.

And that will give a rising party a hell of a platform....


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 25, 2011)

Saying he would like to bypass Congress and actually attempting it are two different things.  Certainly Obama is frustrated with the spending and program cuts his expanded government leanings are hard pressed.  He would be best to focus his efforts on some type of trade off of $3B in additional cuts in exchange for $2B in added revenue.  As a conservative to seems like I'm getting well over 50% of what I want.  He averts the balanced budget amendment threat and appears to get a compromise from the Republicans.  If you remember Obamacare, this is sort of the same manuvering we saw then.  Probably have the same liberals ticked off too.

On a big issue, a compromise is where EVERYBODY is pissed with the results.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?



What on earth did the "57-state" faux pas have to do with the debt ceiling?


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I can see you do not have a business thinking mind.
It would be financially foolish for China to do that.
Not to mention that it Likely is not part of the contract of debt


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It has to be proven, first.  And there IS no violation *here*, none.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



RGS, you are wrong.  Period.   Flatly.  Won't discuss nonsense with you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



And when something constitutional doesn't fit their agenda, they want an amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.


 I agree.  Third step, make sure no wing nut from left or right have a chance for the nominations next year.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



And I'm saying if we're discussing _the constitutionality_ of raising the debt limit, the size of the GDP has zero to do with it.


----------



## Rozman (Jul 25, 2011)

They shoved the dopey changey health care nonsense down our throats with the help of some shady closed door back room deals didn't they....I don't trust these slimy libs.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > What on Earth does Iran Contra have to do with the debt ceiling?
> ...



Nothing.

The 57th state faux pas was brought up in sarcasm when someone started to brag about Obama's in depth kinowledge of the consiutution. It was a funny response.

Iran Contra, however, was brought up in an effort to seriously argue the legiutimacy of Obama being a sole decider on something major.

Poor attempt at a diversion...AGAIN...Maggie.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Conservative said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



That part is parenthetical to the clause. The Constitution is full of those, which have caused innumerable squabbles over interpretation. It's just the way they wrote stuff in those days.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If Obama does this first step is the Supreme Court. Once they rule it Unconstitutional the second step is Impeachment.


 I agree.  Third step, make sure no wing nut from left or right have a chance for the nominations next year.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Maggie...now you are playing childsih games...I thought you were above that.

The discussion has NOTHING to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It is consitutional to raise the debt limit.

This debate has to do with the coinsiututionality of one man, the President, raising the debt limit all by his lonesome.

I guess you had trouble comprehending the crux of the debate?

Or you decided to act like a child and play silly reindeer games.

Which one was it?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Where has it been "shredded" -- show me more. I see you like to pick up on Fox talking points, as well.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



Uhm, no, I don't think so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

An aside on impeachment.

This is a constitutional and political tool.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever the House defines it to be in the indictment.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

Listen, moron Fox/Rushbots- The head of Republicans, Senator McConnell, suggested this- so STFU, gd off the wall irresponsible hater/fanatics. Get a GD grip and turn off the demagogue BS, or move to Russia LOL!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



Riiiight....


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking News. This just in.
> ...



My reaction too.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Obviously. I simply think you people are *not* thinking with regard to these TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUES. Raising the debt ceiling to pay for existing debt and a budget showdown for future spending that will follow.

Enough said.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



*I* didn't mention either. Huh??????????????


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Look at the title of the thread, man. Jeezus.

I'm willing to discuss the budget crisis anytime. Just not here, because there are other threads discussing it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Calling me a hag in your neg rep all the time must really make your day. Grow the fuck up.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "The biggest danger to the world economy is a bunch of Right Wing nuts in congress". The world is aghast at you moron Pub-propaganda dupes....


----------



## Trajan (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



is this objectionable?


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Nice try Maggie..

So I will say the same thing to you.....

LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD

*Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt *

This thread has nothing to do with the constitutionality of raising the debt limit.

It has to do with the President op[ting to bypass congress and make a decision to do something that will affect all Americans...BY HIMSELF.

So tell me...

Is it that you are playingt childish games..

Or do you have a problem understanding the topics you debate.

It must be one of them...which one is it?

Are you a child or are you intellectually immature?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

In the end, the ADULT in the room has to do the obviously necessary. It won't lose him any Pub cooperation, obviously- they won't even vote for THEIR ideas. Like many of the jobs bills and the pub style health reform. Insanity only brainwashed bigotted fanatics could support. The world is aghast.


----------



## Jarhead (Jul 25, 2011)

Trajan said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Not at all.

Maggie just likes to say childish things. It makes her feel like a winner.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



7 times for GW Bush in 8 years and 3 times for Obama in 2 1/2 years.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 25, 2011)

First, I notice all of you ignored Willow's suggestion, repeated several times in this thread, that everybody should actually listen to the video.  This could be a historic event as it might be the first and last time that Willow will be defending this President.  

To my fellow rightwingers, please cool the rhetoric about Obama threatening to evoke anything illegal in that speech.  He didn't.  All he said was that after dealing with Congress over this, he wished he could do it on his own.  But he followed that comment immediately with a statement that such is not the way things get done.

In short, in that particular sequence of his speech, he said noting whatsoever to criticize.

What he will say tonight if that speech happens is anybody's guess.  But as he has been steadily moving closer and closer to the GOP position on all of this, I am guessing that he will offer a suggestion at least most Republicans will come off looking lame if they criticize it.  They're sooo close in the White House and House of Representatives.  All that we have to do is table the issue of higher taxes on the rich for at least a little while and get the Senate to agree.

Like Obama, I wish so much I could be undisputed dictator for just a little while.

But that's not the way we get things done.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

Obama already tabled higher taxes on the rich, making it closing loopholes/tax cuts so the moron pub promise to Norquist wouldn't be broken. I hope he tells them to feck themselves, and do McConnell's suggestion....


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

"Routine housekeeping" under Bush has become an impeachable offense under Obama. You people are MORONS.

British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "The biggest danger to the world economy is a bunch of Right Wing nuts in congress". The world is aghast at you moron Pub propaganda dupes....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > FuelRod said:
> ...



They did? In the budgets they never submitted?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> "Routine housekeeping" under Bush has become an impeachable offense under Obama. You people are MORONS.
> 
> British Chancellor of the Exchequer: "The biggest danger to the world economy is a bunch of Right Wing nuts in congress". The world is aghast at you moron Pub propaganda dupes....



When we want the opinion of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, we'll beat it out of him.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 25, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> hellofromwarsaw said:
> 
> 
> > McConnell told him what to do, since Tea Party moron fanatics are out of control, literally.So it's hardly even Obama's idea. When will these a-holes let the recovery continue?
> ...



What recovery? Unemployment went up another 2 points in the past month.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Jul 25, 2011)

Tell ya what, best thing to hope for is if neither the Dems or Repubs are allowed to compete in the next election.


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> What he will say tonight if that speech happens is anybody's guess.


Foxfyre, Wolf Blitzer went on the air over a hour ago and gave a heads up what the speech will contain. Here it is.

Speech Will Be Just 18 Minutes

Highlights will be according to CNN: President will say:

Number 1. *United States Is In Imminent Threat Of Default*

Number 2. *Congress Has Reached A Stalemate Forcing President To Telling Americans He Will Bypass Congress And Take Matters Into Own Hands*


In other words he is fixing to usurp the Constitution just to save his reelection bid for a second term. Wolf Blitzer just stated this is a serious dangerous move from the president and will instill fear amongst the American people. This is Wolf saying this now and he is flabbergasted (astonished). Anyone remember the Reichstag Fire and decree Hitler used to his advantage?


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

"When we want the opinion of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, we'll beat it out of him."

Mating call of the brainwashed Fox/Rushbot Ugly 'Merican. The world and Dems, ie EVERYONE BUT Pub dupes, think you're sorely misled...or batshytte crazy...But thanks for the Depression and now obstruction...BRILLIANT!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > What he will say tonight if that speech happens is anybody's guess.
> ...



Really?  I didn't check in on CNN tonight, but apparently Fox and the other alphabets haven't been furnished with a transcript of the speech or any hint of the content other than it will regard the current debt crisis.  So I wonder how Wolf is so blessed to know what the President will say?  Anyhow if Obama is on time, we'll know in a little over a half hour.  You can get a live feed from the White House here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/live


----------



## Ali777 (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate will never Impeach but this would be a direct violation of the Constitution. The Democrats will stand behind him and VIOLATE the law of the land.
> ...



It's really sad that you have to tell someone that invoking an amendment in the Constitution isn't violating it. It's like having to explain how walking across the street isn't driving your car.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Jul 25, 2011)

This is McConnell's idea, Fox/Rushbots...


----------



## Conservative (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



right. Some people interpret it to mean A, while others say it really means B.

So, that being the case, the only way to prove anything the President does in this regard is a violation of the Constitution, would be a court challenge to the action itself. Therefore, all statements of 'it's unconstitutional' or 'it's not unconstitutional' are essentially bogus unless and until there is a court case and a decision is reached.


----------



## LiberalHere (Jul 25, 2011)

Conservative said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> > What does the 14th ammendment have to do with the debt ceiling?
> ...



How about the fact that we have to pay our freakin' bills?


----------



## LiberalHere (Jul 25, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...





Sadly, this would be a waste of money we don't have!


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

There he goes trying to create class warfare between the rich and poor. Blaming oil companies. This is pathetic. He is wrong. He wants to spread the wealth earned by hard working taxpayers who make over 250 thousand. In otherwords, he wants to give the poor a bigger free ride on their entitlements. This is a blame game.


----------



## LiberalHere (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> There he goes trying to create class warfare between the rich and poor. Blaming oil companies. This is pathetic. He is wrong. He wants to spread the wealth earned by hard working taxpayers who make over 250 thousand. In otherwords, he wants to give the poor a bigger free ride on their entitlements. This is a blame game.





Have you been living under a rock, there is one!


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 25, 2011)

Boehner just set the record straight about Obama, It's about the usurper wanting to be reelected.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...



Gee, you were wrong again.  Didn't see that coming.  LOL


----------



## Ali777 (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> There he goes trying to create class warfare between the rich and poor. Blaming oil companies. This is pathetic. He is wrong. He wants to spread the wealth earned by hard working taxpayers who make over 250 thousand. In otherwords, he wants to give the poor a bigger free ride on their entitlements. This is a blame game.



Maybe we can impeach him for that too.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 25, 2011)

well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...


Will that be before or after Corsi reveals the name of the forger of Obama's birth certificate. http://www.usmessageboard.com/humor...as-been-located-and-fixing-to-be-exposed.html


And without even seeing the transcript of the out of context quote that was cobbled on to the highlighted part that Obama DIDN'T say, you can be sure Obama said nothing that can be manipulated into him "confessing" that he would bypass Congress and change the laws on his own. I would bet he was not talking about the debt and since it was Latino issues, he was probably talking about immigration, and he probably said that bypassing Congress is not what should be done. The dead givaway is the fact that the author had to put his own words as part of an "Obama quote."


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Trajan said:


> well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,




It was a campaign speech aimed at wishy washy independents.

And incredibly cynical...but he does get 10 Points For Consistency on that front.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 25, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The Senate will never Impeach but this would be a direct violation of the Constitution. The Democrats will stand behind him and VIOLATE the law of the land.
> ...


Is there an "indirect" violation?
Now, you will provide examples of these alleged violations of the US Constitution.
Or you can just sit back and watch the adults talk.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 25, 2011)

Trajan said:


> well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,



Don't forget that he wants us to call our representatives in DC !


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 25, 2011)

Blamed Bush
Corporate jets
Quoted Reagan (wanna be)
Rich people suck
Middle class suffering
Clean energy
Education

Same old

Put a fucking windmill in my backyard and STFU


----------



## Conservative (Jul 25, 2011)

Transcript Obama remarks

Transcript Boehner's remarks


Essentially, they are playing 'he said, she said' with each other... and with us.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,
> ...




Oh yeah.

Barbara Lee is, like, totally going to take my call.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> Blamed Bush
> Corporate jets
> Quoted Reagan (wanna be)
> Rich people suck
> ...



He forgot to mention Green Jobs.

His speech writers deserve a REPRIMAND!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2011)

What a partisan, Hack, Asshole the Great Hopey Changey Obama has become. Disgraceful speech. Sheer and utter incompetence.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 25, 2011)

Just got off the phone with my rep's office.  Interesting discussion of how easily I might re-direct my campaign contributions to any candidate that arises to take him on in a primary should he cave in to Our Kenyan President's impeachment-grade threats.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...


MY advice...Stay off the drugs.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 25, 2011)

I missed the speech.  It is true they are terming it the Neah, neah a boo boo speech?


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 25, 2011)

Seriously, thank you Mr. Obama.  An economic crisis is enough at the moment.  We don't need a Constitutional one as well.  Our luck we do impeach hiim and end up with Biden.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 25, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Seriously, thank you Mr. Obama.  An economic crisis is enough at the moment.  We don't need a Constitutional one as well.  Our luck we do impeach hiim and end up with Biden.



A temporary condition at worst.  A known plagiarist is also a recidivist so Bidet would quickly play the same 14th game and be in the dock right through the election.  I do wonder, though, how one proceeds with already-in-progress impeachment proceedings still in progress when the accused is voted out before conclusion.  I would hope it might culminate in deportation.  Kenya might be willing in the one case but I rather think not in the other.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 25, 2011)

So Obama wants a compromise...

Can't get one with the opposing party.  Even more interesting, Obama can't get a compromise with the Democrats.  Interesting how the media seems to forget the President has been in meetings with them too.  That is probably why he expressed frustration with Reid.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 25, 2011)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> There he goes trying to create class warfare between the rich and poor. Blaming oil companies. This is pathetic. He is wrong. He wants to spread the wealth earned by hard working taxpayers who make over 250 thousand. In otherwords, he wants to give the poor a bigger free ride on their entitlements. This is a blame game.



Yes, you are blaming the wrong guy on this.  Blame the far extremist right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Boehner just set the record straight about Obama, It's about the usurper wanting to be reelected.



You still have not posted your birth certificate.  I know you were born in Czech Republic, so anything you post is not worth anything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 25, 2011)

Dr.House said:


>



Dr. House continues to project his inner hate against any authority figure.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,
> ...



Most of it sounded almost verbatim to his Friday speech, sigh.  Starting off with 'blame Bush' and then magnanimously saying that both parties created the problem and both would have to solve it followed by blaming the Republicans for everything.  And then laying out a plan so vague and with zero specifics that wouldn't have made a good clue in a kid's detective game.

But Speaker Boehner wasn't a hell of a lot better in his rebuttal and didn't make me proud.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Is it true Obama quoted Ronnie?


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Is it true Obama quoted Ronnie?



Multiple times, just like in his USA Today piece. I think he's given up on being Lincoln or FDR. He really is Carter writ large.


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I thought Boehner's speech was a hell of a lot better, I read both texts:

The Full Text of Speaker Boehner's National Address - - NationalJournal.com



> Good evening. Im John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect.  These are difficult times in the life of our nation.  Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.
> 
> Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio.  I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America.  Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.
> 
> ...


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 26, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Breaking News. This just in.
> 
> 
> *Speaker John Boehner will go on National TV In A Rebuttal Speech Right After The Presidents Speech*



Cry me a river Johnny boy.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 26, 2011)

This thread sure got a lot more quiet after his speech.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 26, 2011)

Once again, the President is willing to compromise everything. And once again, the Republicans want more.

Boehner wants to play politics with the debt ceiling six months down the road. But I'm sure the usual people on USMB will come out in full force for him and his plan.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 26, 2011)

shintao said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



It is the main goal of the republicans.
Everything else is secondary.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



It was better in that I can agree with what he is saying more than I can agree with what the President is saying.  But like Obama's speech came across,  I can't see that it was any more than campaign like rhetoric strong on ideology and great sounding phrases, and devoid of specifics that might give us hope that they know what they are doing.  I wanted him to give me something to stand up and cheer for.  He didn't.

At least he had the guts to call out the Presdident.  If the President had done his job, we wouldn't be in this mess now.


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



He did get into some specifics, hours earlier. During 'Prime Time' The president's choice, the rebuttal is time limited. One thing that has become clear in the past 5 weeks, it's only been the conservatives putting forth plans with details, that the Senate won't hear and the President says he'll veto. 

Also over the past month, every poll that gets into the issues of what should be done regarding spending polls the same: Cut spending, drastically. When given a choice as Gallup did, the vast majority say to cut with no tax increase or small increases; biggest factor, cut spending.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jul 26, 2011)

The problem is there is no compromise. Repubs don't want to increase taxes, Dems don't want to cut spending. Surely, there can be a tax increase and a cut to spending. 

Annie
As for your poll, of course people don't want tax increases. Probably the most redundant question on any poll like this. It's like saying to a guy, "Yes or no, would you like your balls squeezed in a vice?"...


----------



## GWV5903 (Jul 26, 2011)

Back his ASS into the corner and watch him squirm Boehner... 

The thought that we need to give this narcissistic ego a debt increase is suicidal...

It's amazing what a addict will continue to do if you do not deny them more, it is very simple folks, we can't continue to spend more than we take in...


----------



## Modbert (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> Also over the past month, every poll that gets into the issues of what should be done regarding spending polls the same: Cut spending, drastically. *When given a choice as Gallup did, the vast majority say to cut with no tax increase or small increases; biggest factor, cut spending.*



 How Dishonest. Only 20% according to those polled by Gallup wanted no tax increases whatsoever. The far majority of Americans want some tax increases. The GOP already got their deal anyway in the latest compromise by the Democrats. There's absolutely nothing left for you to complain about when it comes to the Democrats and the debt ceiling.


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Also over the past month, every poll that gets into the issues of what should be done regarding spending polls the same: Cut spending, drastically. *When given a choice as Gallup did, the vast majority say to cut with no tax increase or small increases; biggest factor, cut spending.*
> ...



Read what I posted. Much more on the point than 80% want tax increases on the wealthy.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> Read what I posted. Much more on the point than 80% want tax increases on the wealthy.



You mean the 400 Wealthiest Americans who pay an effective tax rate of 18%? Those people? Or the people making $10 million a year who pay an effective tax rate of 19%?


----------



## Annie (Jul 26, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Read what I posted. Much more on the point than 80% want tax increases on the wealthy.
> ...



and those families making $250k or even lower, jointly.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

Reasons Obama wasn't specific about solving the debt crisis:

1.  It would require numbers that can be proven true or false.
2.  It would define what he wants and his ability to achieve those results.
3.  It would reveal flaws in his thinking.
4.  It would take away his ability to say, Americans don't understand the problem/solution.
5.  It would take him out of campaign mode.
6.  It would mean his advisors would have to show they had experience in their fields.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Two words for you, saveliberty: non sense.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 26, 2011)

dilloduck said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,
> ...



and hey remember , if you make under 250K, your 'safe'


 buy that? and I truly have the deed for the Brooklyn bridge.....right here


----------



## Trajan (Jul 26, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Read what I posted. Much more on the point than 80% want tax increases on the wealthy.
> ...



and so what? you do realize that that is a huge portion of and as total net recipients is over 93% of the fed revenue collects on income...right?


----------



## Trajan (Jul 26, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> The problem is there is no compromise. Repubs don't want to increase taxes, Dems don't want to cut spending. Surely, there can be a tax increase and a cut to spending.
> 
> Annie
> As for your poll, of course people don't want tax increases. Probably the most redundant question on any poll like this. It's like saying to a guy, "Yes or no, would you like your balls squeezed in a vice?"...



obama already has a tax increase coming  in 2013 several in fact...you know that...right?


----------



## Trajan (Jul 26, 2011)

boedicca said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Blamed Bush
> ...





hey polling says keep Green jobs on the downlow....


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two words for you, saveliberty: non sense.



I see your math is still fuzzy.  Nonsense is one word.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Trajan said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Only that USAR thought it was "breaking news." Breaking news would be a surprise announcement. That was a given.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Well he didn't do that, did he... And you can stop with the phony condescension, please.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



And must really piss you off when I am! Sorry.







At least Trajan puts forth genuinely thought-out points most of the time and knows how to play fair.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> First, I notice all of you ignored Willow's suggestion, repeated several times in this thread, that everybody should actually listen to the video.  This could be a historic event as it might be the first and last time that Willow will be defending this President.
> 
> To my fellow rightwingers, please cool the rhetoric about Obama threatening to evoke anything illegal in that speech.  He didn't.  All he said was that after dealing with Congress over this, he wished he could do it on his own.  But he followed that comment immediately with a statement that such is not the way things get done.
> 
> ...



I think most of us are very tired of the grandstanding, the gaming, the _so obvious_ political posturing with a major election cycle just over the horizon. Since it's now the following day and we all know what both Obama and Boehner had to say, my opinion is that nobody wants to hear any more ideological positioning from either camp. Just get busy and *do* something.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 26, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> It's really sad how things turn out sometimes. All the fanatical Hopey Changey followers used to call George Bush a "Dictator." Well guess what? Bush wasn't even close. This current President behaves more & more like a maniacal Dictator everyday. It really is very sad.


It's sadder that we really don't do anything about it, and continue to trust these people.

How many campaign promises has Obama reneged on now?

When will everybody learn that the 2 party system is not designed to give you a choice. At the end of the day they don't benefit the American people, they are not your voice.
They are all beholden to other interests, and YOUR ass always comes last, YOU have to make do without, YOU get the shitty end of the stick, ALWAYS.
We must change our way of thinking and stop the stupid partisan bickering, and go back to the basics.
This is not the first time they have bypassed (or threatened to bypass the Constitution).
Get away from it , do your research on alternative candidates that are not puppets of corporations and the money system, but are willing to uphold and defend the Constitution.
I'd rather have a bunch of no names who know their shit when it comes to the law of the land and sound economics then the lying scumbags that are presented to us as viable choices.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You're not paying for anything in those yet. A spending bill can be enacted and signed, but until it's appropriated (funded), it can just sit in limbo.

United States House Committee on Appropriations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Anachronism said:
> 
> 
> > hellofromwarsaw said:
> ...



Here's why:


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > What he will say tonight if that speech happens is anybody's guess.
> ...



Poor Wolf. He knows better than to jump the gun. I did notice he looked a little sheepish after the speech.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Conservative said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Exactly. Thanks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Boehner just set the record straight about Obama, It's about the usurper wanting to be reelected.



Your tunnel vision is absolutely incredible. Boehner KNOWS that if he doesn't kowtow to the 100 or so Tea Party members, he'll loose the speakership. Howzat for game playing?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Trajan said:


> well the speech is over he didn't do anything  but reiterate that a) he is now on the left of harry reid and b) evoked more class warfare,



Anyone who doesn't believe there's class warfare going on needs to check out the latest PEW statistics. (It was only released today, so I can't find it posted yet).

Here's a nuts and bolts of the study, which can be found in a variety of places.

Wealth gap widens during recession | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

Obama's at 43% approval rating it seems.  Lower then Clinton in a similiar time and circumstance.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> Just got off the phone with my rep's office.  Interesting discussion of how easily I might re-direct my campaign contributions to any candidate that arises to take him on in a primary should he cave in to Our Kenyan President's impeachment-grade threats.



Scott Brown? He's too smart to fall for such bullshit.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Best you can do? Says nothing and makes zero sense in the context of the post anyway.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Dr.House said:


>



Then there's reality:


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

What would be a cartoon Maggie.  I understand it may pass for reality for you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Is it true Obama quoted Ronnie?
> ...



It's only because the average American conservative needs a reminder occasionally that their hero _also_ was a compromiser.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Boehner's political attack did not look good for him anymore than Obama's elevated him. It was a wash, in my opinion, and I could have been watching something far more interesting for a half-hour than just a rehash of their ideological differences in soundbites.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> 
> Obama: I'd Like 'to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own' - George E. Condon Jr. - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...




Breaking.I Army Retarded,sock of Pole Rider is a racist who hates blacks which is why I have an obsession over Obama and could care less about the corruption of other presidents and that they are criminals as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two words for you, saveliberty: non sense.
> ...



Hey, I was using GOP fuzzy math!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What they are proposing we compromise on, however, is as reprehensible to those of us who are fiscal conservatives as it would be reprehensible to say okay, we can't get together on this race stuff so let's compromise:  We won't bash 'those people' if you agree that it is okay to bash 'these people'.  What they are requiring compromise on is that nothing be done to address the real problem.  They'll both appear to have won a point and it will actually be business as usual going forward.

It does not give people like me confidence when they are plotting behind closed doors, figuring out how they will look good to most of their constituencies, and not actually tell us a damn thing about what will be done in the budget or how it will affect anybody.

They are already saying that we will default on our debts if we do not increase the debt ceiling next Tuesday.  That is a bald faced lie.

They are already saying that we will cut X billion or trillion out of future expenditures without being will to commit to exactly what those cuts will be or how they will be done which means nothing will be done at all.

It's all smoke and mirrors and I personally feel that our fearless leaders are giving us all the shaft just to tack a few more lucrative years onto their retirement portfolios.  We deserve better.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

We deserve both the far left and the far right to come together, and we are not getting it from either one.

Defined spending cuts, defined reforms in Social Security, reduced defense budgets, some increased tax revenue.

Both sides have to agree to a guaranteed deal, where both sides give up enough so that it hurts each side.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

Too bad Obama didn't invoke the 5th.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

When even Chris Matthews on MSNBC is appalled at a speech, you know the President gave a pretty bad, ineffective speech.  Alas, no more tingle up his leg.  Life is so fickle.  

But what a difference five years makes:



> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
> 
> It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Why was Chris appalled?  Not liberal enough?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> The problem is there is no compromise. Repubs don't want to increase taxes, Dems don't want to cut spending. Surely, there can be a tax increase and a cut to spending.
> 
> Annie
> As for your poll, of course people don't want tax increases. Probably the most redundant question on any poll like this. It's like saying to a guy, "Yes or no, would you like your balls squeezed in a vice?"...



According to all these polls, the majority of people responding to the question is "both" (to increased taxes/cut spending--not the balls squeezed). 

Budget/Taxes


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

GWV5903 said:


> Back his ASS into the corner and watch him squirm Boehner...
> 
> The thought that we need to give this narcissistic ego a debt increase is suicidal...
> 
> It's amazing what a addict will continue to do if you do not deny them more, it is very simple folks, we can't continue to spend more than we take in...



You mean like Gingrich tried to do to Clinton? How'd that work out?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Annie said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Another small percentage, and yes, they ARE rich by comparison to the _average_ wage earner, especially now.

The deluded Obama critics who think $250,000 is a middle-class salary. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine


> The Census Bureau... reported that the median household income was $50,223 in 2007up slightly from the last year but still below the 1999 peak. So a household that earned $250,000 made five times the median. In fact, as this chart shows, only 2.245 million U.S. households, the top 1.9 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2007. (About 20 percent of households make more than $100,000.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Reasons Obama wasn't specific about solving the debt crisis:
> 
> 1.  It would require numbers that can be proven true or false.
> 2.  It would define what he wants and his ability to achieve those results.
> ...



Neither "side" has produced specifics, which usually run a couple thousand pages. That's the issue here, in my opinion: The budget cuts, which will be part of an overall FY budget and beyond, has yet to be drafted, debated in both chambers, nor voted upon yet. The issue TODAY is raising the debt ceiling, period, with the simple "promise" to all or some of the bullet points each has produced thus far.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > It's really sad how things turn out sometimes. All the fanatical Hopey Changey followers used to call George Bush a "Dictator." Well guess what? Bush wasn't even close. This current President behaves more & more like a maniacal Dictator everyday. It really is very sad.
> ...



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Boehner can't control the yay-hoos of the far right Tea Party in Congress.

If the country defaults, the GOP will have less than 1/3rd in each chamber in January 2013 with BHO as president.

The Dems will  not pull what they did in 2009.  They will ram a 100 days program through that will make FDR et al look like the Tea Party.

You guys don't have the votes in the country to back up putting America into a Depression.  You will be politically destroyed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



As I mentioned just a few moments ago, none of them has specifically spelled out exactly where and how much will be cut. 

The back and forth proposals put forth generalizations, period. Boehner redefines what constitutes "emergency" spending, but we all know that's a pretty broad term and would still be open to a ton of loopholes. I read something that identified cuts to education programs, infrastructure (no high-speed rail, being the only specific), and overlapping agency funding that should be removed (a good thing). Obama has talked about the waste and fraud, particularly in the Medicare, and defense authorizations for stuff the Pentagon doesn't even want anymore, among other things. The point is, that all gets done in Part 2, when actual bills are drafted and ultimately enacted. Stay tuned.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Why was Chris appalled?  Not liberal enough?



I didn't watch MSNBC, but I suspect he was surprised that it didn't include specific details, which was what everyone expected, and which was the reaction also by CNN pundits.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boehner can't control the yay-hoos of the far right Tea Party in Congress.
> 
> If the country defaults, the GOP will have less than 1/3rd in each chamber in January 2013 with BHO as president.
> 
> ...



The Tea Party (and several others) are strangely committed to the "pledge" of no new taxes to none other than someone who earns his living by intentionally stirring up trouble: Grover Norquist. They are so enamored with and entranced by his mantra that they actually believe this diverse country of over 311 million people, and whose national economy now depends on the other 600 billion people around the world, can function on the "promise" of free enterprise. Norquist's sole goal is to make it impossible to raise taxes for any reason, including to balance budgets. Ironically, however, he fueded recently with Senator Tom Coburn and several other Republican Senators who are wise to his absurdities, when they voted to eliminate $6 billion in ethanol subsidies to farmers. 

Um, hey Grover: Where do you think *that* $6 billion came from? Coin crops? Plant a penny, harvest when silver dollars emerge?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boehner can't control the yay-hoos of the far right Tea Party in Congress.
> ...



I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking.  I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.

And until there is a balanced budget amendment in place and ratified, that is one point I very much agreed with Speaker Boehner last night.  Congress is not going to use any new taxes to balance anything.  They haven't done that for more than fifty years now.  They will use it to justify more money funneled to their constituencies because it sounds so noble and right to fuzzy mush headed people to do that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

I no more want unregulated capitalism, which destroys competititon, than I want communism, which destroys personal iniative.

The Balanced Budget amendment is a hoax, Foxfyre.

Rich Lowry, the very conservative editor of National Review, tells us why at The Balanced-Budget Amendment - By Rich Lowry - The Corner - National Review Online


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

And here's the proof of the insane hypocrisy, hutzpah, and self-serving leadership of our fearless President.  He has nothing down on paper.  Nothing that can be handed to the media with the bullet points of what the President proposes and is willing to support.  Carney said he has spelled it out lots of times including last Friday night.  (I listened to the President on Friday night and the President provided NO SPECIFICS.)  The White House Press Corp. is finally calling him on it.

And it went by quickly but he actually said, "You can tell the American people that there is nothing to worry about."  (You can't make this stuff up.)

The link here take you to the video of the actual exchange at the White House this morning:



> *Carney Gets Hit for Ten Minutes on The Obama Plan*
> July 26, 2011 2:34 P.M. By Daniel Foster
> Or the lack thereof. After bobbing-and-weaving for nine minutes, Carney finally says what everybody knows: the president won&#8217;t put his plan on paper because he doesn&#8217;t want it to become &#8220;politically charged&#8221; before a compromise can be reached. In other words, you&#8217;ve got to pass it to find out what&#8217;s in it:
> 
> Carney Gets Hit for Ten Minutes on The Obama Plan - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online



The question is if there are significant savings to be had in defense, in medicare/social security fraud, etc. etc. etc., why haven't they already done that?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 26, 2011)

> I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.



Please cite in the Constitution where free enterprise is the mandated economic system. It must be in the same clause where the Constitution refers to small government. 

And those who dont believe in free enterprise are welcome and entitled and have a right to remain in America, in spite of your wishes, and per the Constitution. 



> And until there is a balanced budget amendment in place and ratified, that is one point I very much agreed with Speaker Boehner last night. Congress is not going to use any new taxes to balance anything. They haven't done that for more than fifty years now. They will use it to justify more money funneled to their constituencies because it sounds so noble and right to fuzzy mush headed people to do that.



A balanced budget amendment is a political contrivance, meaningless nonsense advocated by the lazy and the ignorant. If youre unhappy with the actions of your representatives in Congress, compel them to do otherwise with your petition and your vote, do the necessary research and work to manifest the governance you advocate  dont lay it off to an ill-conceived political scheme to the detriment of the Nation. 

There is already an Amendment in place to compel Congress to balance the budget, one simply need not be too lazy or ignorant to use it: 

Amendment 1:  _*or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*_


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everything in the Constitution is designed to recognize the unalienable rights of the people to govern themselves, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unfettered by a monarch or king or dictator or socialist or totalitarian government.  The purpose of the federal government was to secure those rights and then leave the people alone to form the society they wished to have.

To a leftist such a concept is gibberish as they look to government to have the power to create and provide the society they want.

To a constitutionalist or freedom loving person, it is truth as they know government with power enough to order society will use that power to further its own ambitions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.
> ...



You are an anti-federalist, Foxfyre, and that is certainly your right.  We the People use Government to order society, and it has been so since 1787.  Nothing has changed.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > First, I notice all of you ignored Willow's suggestion, repeated several times in this thread, that everybody should actually listen to the video.  This could be a historic event as it might be the first and last time that Willow will be defending this President.
> ...


Genius....The framers set up the federal government to prevent the legislature and executive branches from operating unilaterally. The idea was to keep government from "just doing something".
The worst thing that could occur here is the very thing you suggested. That is "just get something done"....NO!!!!!
Spending needs to be slashed. That is that!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2011)

Spending overwhelmingly needs to be cut and revenue, particularly on the wealthy, has to be increased.

No surrender to the whacky far left or the crazy far right.

Never.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> And here's the proof of the insane hypocrisy, hutzpah, and self-serving leadership of our fearless President.  He has nothing down on paper.  Nothing that can be handed to the media with the bullet points of what the President proposes and is willing to support.  Carney said he has spelled it out lots of times including last Friday night.  (I listened to the President on Friday night and the President provided NO SPECIFICS.)  The White House Press Corp. is finally calling him on it.
> 
> And it went by quickly but he actually said, "You can tell the American people that there is nothing to worry about."  (You can't make this stuff up.)
> 
> ...



The Chief Executive position is one of leadership.  That requires a plan and understanding of the issue.  Obama continuously demonstrates neither.  The do nothing President should resign from the 2012 contest and let potential leaders step up.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 26, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Is it true Obama quoted Ronnie?



Somebody pasted a page of Reagan into Our Kenyan President's copy of Das Kapital and he wasn't sharp enough to notice the paper was different, the page size was different and the font was different.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.

The fact the above statement by Henry is so goofy is a good start as to why he is not a naturally born American citizen.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 27, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Watching the news right now. Boehner just laid out a plan about 40 minutes ago. Now Obama has decided before the nation tonight at 9 eastern (8 Central time) and aids are saying he will go ahead and bypass congress and invoke the 14th amendment which experts say will increase the crisis because the Constitution states that he can't do it without the lawful approval of Congress. Does this mean that SS checks will not go out for seniors and veterans? We will find out I guess. The word is that he can be impeached if he allows us to default. The sign that hints to Obama stating he will invoke the 14th Amendment was this in his La Raza speech earlier today which is in this link.
> ...


Well, since no CON$ervative has challenged my suspicion that Obama never confessed that he would bypass Congress, I became very curious what the CON$ knew Obama actually said. So I searched out the transcript to see just how the CON$ervative "National Journal" perverted what Obama actually said. Here's the full sentence that the &#8220;bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.&#8221; part came from:

"Now, I know *some people want me to* bypass Congress and change the laws on my own."

That quote was later followed by this exchange with the audience:

"THE PRESIDENT:  But that's not how -- that's not how our system works.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it!

THE PRESIDENT: That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.

So let's be honest. I need a dance partner here -- and the floor is empty."

Hardly a confession that he intends to bypass Congress, which is why I have learned never to trust any quote or statistic from any CON$ervative source!!!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 27, 2011)

The more important address came from Standard & Poors.  They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating.  Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt.  This will further cause financial problems...for everyone.  Its called inflation.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.
> 
> The fact the above statement by Henry is so goofy is a good start as to why he is not a naturally born American citizen.



A perfectly reasonable request.  Were I to decide to run for President I'd immediately make a certified copy of my U.S. Birth Certificate available to all who would like to see.  I do not, however, intend to run as did your annointed messiah.  Surely since you'd like to see my birth certificate, in the absence of any intent to seek office, you must feel quite queasy about your BOY having none.

Oh, yes, since some sort of "goofy" factor rule proves, in what passes for your mind, that one is not a natural born U.S. native then I feel compelled to ask from what country you fled and ahead of _what_?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 27, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> The more important address came from Standard & Poors.  They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating.  Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt.  This will further cause financial problems...for everyone.  Its called inflation.



This is the problem.  Our fearless leaders have been so addicted to having unlimited access to the people's money and almost unlimited power to distribute or promise it, even if they have to borrow against 'unlimited' future revenues, in order to buy power, prestige, influence, and increase their own personal fortunes.  It is heady stuff and they are terrified at the thought of giving it up.

So we have leadership that are behind closed doors--forget Obama's pledge to have the most transpaprent government in history--trying to concoct something that enough of the great unwashed will believe that they actually did something constructive.  Boehner's plan has already been shot down by the CBO.  It would have produced $1 billion - that's $1 billion with a 'b' - in debt reduction in 2012.  Reid's plan and what Obama has proposed, as nearly as we can tell, would add significantly to the debt.

They are trying to tell us that raising the debt ceiling is not a license to spend more money.  Well if they don't plan to spend more money, why does the debt ceiling need to be raised.

Unless they do deal with the spending end, the prediction from knowledgeable economists is that we will have our credit rating downgraded and that is not going to be good for any of us.  Neither the President nor the Democrats nor the Republicans seem to have the will to deal with that, however.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.
> ...



You are the "goofy" factor.  The birth certificate "non issue" has been satisfactorily resolved for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  Henry, no one cares what you think.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the "goofy" factor.  The birth certificate "non issue" has been satisfactorily resolved for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  Henry, no one cares what you think.




Perhaps you're right.  Nobody cares what I think _except you_.  You wouldn't be replying unless you (1) cared and (2) believe, deep down, that I have it exactly right.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 27, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are the "goofy" factor.  The birth certificate "non issue" has been satisfactorily resolved for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  Henry, no one cares what you think.
> ...



Henry, hang in there.  Alas, Jake will say all manner of goofy things to 'shoot down' any position you take and will accuse you of all manner of things, of saying what you haven't said, of believing what you don't believe, of wanting to do what you don't want to do, of thinking what you don't think, until you take a different position at which time he will argue the opposite side.  That's if he follows his usual M.O.  I think he actually almost likes me, and he does it to me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
*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. *But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And Foxfyre will talk of things she knows not.  Not to worry, Harry, it's all good.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 27, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.
> ...



Oh.  So you are among the ranks fo the "birther retards".

Thanks for clearing that up.  

It's always nice to know who the mentally challenged are.  It saves bandwidth.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Teabots who argue the birther nonsense are nonsensbots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
> 
> ...



"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. "

I don't see anything that allows Obama to issue new debt without congressional approval.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > AMENDMENT XIV
> ...



I am sure you don't.  Here is the *important part*.  "_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."_

No valid question exists whether he has the power do it.  Whether he should is the question.  The Congress members who vote against raising the limit are questioning the validity of the Amendment as well as the debt.

So Obama does not (I would not) and the next election sweeps 2/3d majorities of dems in both chambers and Obama.  The first order of business will be to impeach the Republican Senators and Congressman who voted against the debt.

Remember that impeachment is a political weapon, and I suspect at that point the dems would use it like a hammer on an egg.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I question the wisdom of incurring those debts, not the validity of the debt once it's been incurred.

A valid question does exist whether he has the power to do what no President has done since the debt ceiling was created.

Obama presides over a default and 9.2% unemployment and you feel the Dems would get 2/3rds in both chambers? LOL!
That's funny!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, because the Teabots are setting the Pubs up for a massive defeat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



"So Obama does not (I would not) and the next election sweeps 2/3d majorities of dems in both chambers and Obama"

Republicans hold 47 Senate seats. 
Only 10 of which are up in 2012.
The Dems cannot get 2/3rds, even if you use Obama math. 

The Republicans could take 20 of the 23 Dem seats to get 2/3rds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


9.2%, suck it Obama!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

10.8% in Reagan's third year.  BHO is still a point and a half better.  You got nothing, kid.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 27, 2011)

It'll all sort itself out in the impeachment hearings.  Probable that there won't be a conclusion berfore January, 2013 and it'll continue in further corruption hearings and, ultimately, criminal proceedings.  By then, however, the accused will have taken sanctuary in Venezuela.  Unless, of course, there IS a God and the Venezuela option is no longer viable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> It'll all sort itself out in the impeachment hearings.  Probable that there won't be a conclusion berfore January, 2013 and it'll continue in further corruption hearings and, ultimately, criminal proceedings.  By then, however, the accused will have taken sanctuary in Venezuela.  Unless, of course, there IS a God and the Venezuela option is no longer viable.



You are delusional, as Our Lord does know, and will have mercy on you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> 10.8% in Reagan's third year.  BHO is still a point and a half better.  You got nothing, kid.



In July 1983, unemployment was 9.4%, down from 10.8% in December 1982. Lower than it had been in a year. And trending down.
In July 2011, unemployment is 9.2%, 1% higher than when he took office. And trending up.

By November 1984, unemployment was down to 7.2%. 
You realistically think Obama can get it down to 7.2% by next November?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.

You need to think before you write.


----------



## Dr.House (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.
> 
> You need to think before you write.



(You're such a pussy..... Seriously, whiner boy....)

And an idiot...

Not one economist or anyone for that matter, believes the unemployment rate will drop significantly in a year, let alone to 7.5%....

You need to think before you drool, dumbass...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

You post what you believe, and so what, Dr. House.  Not more than half dozen here listen to you for more than grins and chuckles.  Exactly what I posted is what will happen.  Little boys like you who still live with their mother are just darn silly.  

Read up and gets yourself edumacated, housie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/06/reagan_obama_and_presidential_1.html


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.
> 
> You need to think before you write.



Default? If Obama doesn't pay the bondholders first, that's on him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.
> ...



We'll see 10% before we see 7.5%.
Unless Obamacare gets repealed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If the debt ceiling is not raised and default occurs, we will see 10% plus unemployment and the GOP will be completely in the minority again.  The dems will not waste that shot if given it one more time.  Think about you wish for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I wish Obamacare was repealed so employment would start improving.

I wish Obama stopped pouting and agreed to spending cuts so employment would start improving.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are delusional, as Our Lord does know, and will have mercy on you.



It's so cute when a liberal calls upon a stranger.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.
> 
> You need to think before you write.



Interest rate hikes from lower bond ratings will slow the economy and increase unemployment.  This is the result of not handling the spending issue.  That rests more squarely on the Democrats.  Interestingly, it plays directly into the hands of the Tea Party.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are delusional, as Our Lord does know, and will have mercy on you.
> ...



You are the one who is delusional if you believe the Tea Party defaults the debt.  Watch and see.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

Interestingly, you are dead wrong.  The housing market crunch is the GOP.  Increased interest rates will drive prices down further.  The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.

If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You post what you believe, and so what, Dr. House.  Not more than half dozen here listen to you for more than grins and chuckles.  Exactly what I posted is what will happen.  Little boys like you who still live with their mother are just darn silly.
> 
> Read up and gets yourself edumacated, housie.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Reagan, Obama, and Presidential Teflon


Nice article from June 2009.....



"The lesson from all this is pretty simple: there are limits to Teflon. At best, it gives some incumbents a cushion in their numbers, so that they do not suffer as much as others would"

Hmmmmmmmm......I wonder if the 2010 elections, there were a record number of House seats that flipped Republican, IIRC, were proof that Obama's Teflon is gone?


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Interestingly, you are dead wrong.  The housing market crunch is the GOP.  Increased interest rates will drive prices down further.  The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.
> 
> If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.



The housing crisis was the result of a Democratic drive to expand home ownership.  Well documented fact Jake.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, you are dead wrong.  The housing market crunch is the GOP.  Increased interest rates will drive prices down further.  The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.
> ...


That is pure CON$ervative bullshit, Bush is no Democrat. Well documented fact Slaveliberty.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

*Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership*
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In *a bid to boost minority homeownership,* President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to *150,000 first-time owners annually,* he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit.* Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.*

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would* guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

Only 1 of 5 Americans are buying the Tea Party nonsense, and that % will do down even further in the next few weeks.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in greedy capitalists who, well, "capitalize" on America's promise to keep it free. Capitalism isn't perfect, and it breeds corruption just as elected officials can be corrupted by the capitalist lobbyists who are in it for only one thing: Themselves and their own pocketbooks, not caring a single bit about how many lives they might destroy in the process. If only we hadn't been seeing this in full action over the last five years, I too would have been touting the noble goals of free enterprise. But it's been badly abused, you must admit. I've said many many times that the only way to get the country back to some kind of fiscal responsibility is a genuine partnering of public and private sectors, which may be a painful process but otherwise, we're a country running amok. The government must have adequate regulations in place to avoid future tsunamis, and the private sector needs to step up to the plate and do their part to generate the business climate and create jobs that can make it happen, regardless of said regulations. It's always been that way, and up until recently, it has worked.

Example: A quip from THE WEEK, quoted from a story in the NYT recently.

_"Despite the soft economy, high unemployment, and stagnant wages for most workers, top executives got huge raises last year. The average paycheck for top executives at 200 big companies in 2010 was $10.8 million, a 23% gain from 2009." 
_

Apparently for some businesses, that's the modern definition of "free enterprise."


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I no more want unregulated capitalism, which destroys competititon, than I want communism, which destroys personal iniative.
> 
> The Balanced Budget amendment is a hoax, Foxfyre.
> 
> Rich Lowry, the very conservative editor of National Review, tells us why at The Balanced-Budget Amendment - By Rich Lowry - The Corner - National Review Online



I wouldn't exactly call it a "hoax," but it certainly could never work. There are any number of unforeseen circumstances that may strike the country which would immediately nullify any "balanced budget" attempt just by virtue of unanticipated costs. What if we have another hurricane like Katrina? Or two or three that strong in one season? With FEMA handicapped by a balanced budget limitation , cities, lives would be destroyed. 

I still think the answer to excess waste resulting from unnecessary programs, antiquated programs still getting annual funding, agency duplications of responsibilities, etc., will go far to balancing a budget, but that would mean invoking a line-item veto and our esteemed USSC has ruled that unconstitutional. So how would even a bare-bones "balanced budget" ever get done? There would still be billions hidden in legal mumbo jumbo.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> And here's the proof of the insane hypocrisy, hutzpah, and self-serving leadership of our fearless President.  He has nothing down on paper.  Nothing that can be handed to the media with the bullet points of what the President proposes and is willing to support.  Carney said he has spelled it out lots of times including last Friday night.  (I listened to the President on Friday night and the President provided NO SPECIFICS.)  The White House Press Corp. is finally calling him on it.
> 
> And it went by quickly but he actually said, "You can tell the American people that there is nothing to worry about."  (You can't make this stuff up.)
> 
> ...



For one thing, entitlement programs like SS and Medicare are NOT ever considered in preparing an annual budget. Never. Those are separate issues that WILL BE eventually studied and other options (cuts) eventually debated in Washington. To believe that all of this can be stuffed into the issue of simply raising the debt ceiling to PAY FOR things we've already budgeted for is ridiculous. Throwing changes to entitlement programs out there  was just an effort by Obama to stave off the wolves who incredibly think ALL of this MUST happen by August 2nd. I mean seriously? 

He did propose his own bullet points, and apparently even Carney has a short memory. Although not expanded upon (yet), *and remember that neither has Boehner's*, here is what Obama proposed nearly four months ago when this all began:

Obama Proposes Cutting $4 Trillion From Deficit in 12 Years - Bloomberg


> With today&#8217;s proposal, Obama is going beyond the fiscal 2012 budget he presented on Feb. 14, which forecast cutting the deficit by $1.1 trillion over a decade.
> 
> As with his budget, Obama called for ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which are set to expire in 2012. &#8220;I refuse to renew them again,&#8221; he said.
> ...
> ...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.
> ...



And yet the framers saw fit to establish separate government entities to oversee that those rights are not abused. Throughout, the Constitution advocates checks and balances, *COMPROMISE*. Again, something Grover Norquist calls "date rape."


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 28, 2011)

You know, a balanced budget doesn't mean an emergency fund can't be established.  Back in the 90's I helped establish a reserve fund for our city.  It represents 15% of the annual budget.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I agree. Just not at this particular moment in time. By "just do something," obviously I meant stop all the partisan ideological bickering and get down to work FIXING what needs to be FIXED, starting in September when they all return from their month long vacations after four months of the _oh-so-tiring to their brain cells_ of repeating the same shit day after day.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.
> 
> The fact the above statement by Henry is so goofy is a good start as to why he is not a naturally born American citizen.



He must be on Phil Berg's payroll.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> The more important address came from Standard & Poors.  They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating.  Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt.  This will further cause financial problems...for everyone.  Its called inflation.



Which of course the Tea Party membership which is holding the whole thing hostage at this point doesn't get. That will translate into higher interest on personal loans, including credit cards, more bankruptcies, and even more people looking to the government for social umbrellas. Maybe they should take a brush up course in basic math:


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate.  I want no forgeries I want the real thing.
> ...



There's a whole topic with thousands of postings on this subject. It's called "Conspiracy Theories." I suggest you go there and play along with your friends and leave this particular room where no one is interested in some idiot derailing a more important subject.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The more important address came from Standard & Poors.  They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating.  Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt.  This will further cause financial problems...for everyone.  Its called inflation.
> ...



It needs to be raised because an annual "debt ceiling" are projected costs, not actual outlay. As I said before, there are all sorts of unanticipated events that cause the annual funding of one agency or another to go over budget. That's why we're the only country in the world who even has a "debt ceiling" because it's an unattainable goal as you will see from past president's also needing to raise it, including Reagan and both Bushes.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 28, 2011)

Debt increases because of actual expenditures Maggie.

A debt ceiling needs to be adjusted because a long string of leaders failed to stop spending.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you would rather see another recession with rising interest rates because our credit would no longer be seen by other countries as being a good investment, resulting in more business failures, more people out of work, more people turning to welfare, all because of the "wisdom" behind borrowing that much money? If and when that happens, it won't be the President who gets blamed. It will be the Republicans who believed their "wisdom" would save the economy, when it is *guaranteed* to only get worse.

A final note: Time to end the blame game, folks. BOTH parties have been responsible for rising debt for the last 30 years and beyond. It's a good thing that this has all finally come front/center because I do believe that the spending/revenue problem has met its Waterloo and there WILL be workable solutions in the very near future.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The Senate isn't loaded up with Tea Partiers. Most of those Republicans actually have some brains.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy.  You don't want to be caught out.  If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected.  If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.
> 
> You need to think before you write.



That's really asking a lot.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If I were truly an evil person, I would wish that they *would* allow a default, then we'd see all hell break loose and watch as they sat around wondering how it happened.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Just so.  Boehner and Obama know, even if some of the TeaBots and the far lefties, that the time for reform has arrived: massive spending cuts, means-testing and higher retirement age in SS, revenue increase shared by all Americans (even if only nominal for the lowest wage earners), a greatly reduced military posture, and a renewed commitment to the social compact of America.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, you are dead wrong.  The housing market crunch is the GOP.  Increased interest rates will drive prices down further.  The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.
> ...



Yes, it *is* documented: That GWB expanded home ownership in 2004 for minorities by requiring *no down payments* and approval of non-conventional loans (i.e., subprime mortgages). Your history lesson didn't go far enough.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You beat me to it. For quite some time, I was the only one that was aware of that little factoid it seems.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The far right does not like to hear the entire story.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Debt increases because of actual expenditures Maggie.
> 
> A debt ceiling needs to be adjusted because a long string of leaders failed to stop spending.



So you agree with the premise then.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Debt increases because of actual expenditures Maggie.
> ...



The premise should be, we need to cut spending.

The premise of this thread is Obama can bypass Congress.  His lawyers told him that was not an option.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Reform the system: massive cuts in spending, some increase in revenue that affects all levels of Americans economically, and some sanity out of the TeaBots.


----------



## signelect (Jul 28, 2011)

He is truly delusional as I have thought from the beginning, he never wanted to be president at all.  The dictator thing was his idea from the get go.  I don't think he has the balls to invoke the 14th amendment.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 28, 2011)

I am still amazed after weeks, months, and longer of the media getting it so very wrong about so many things, there are still people here who are still swallowing hook, line, and sinker the media trashing of the Tea Party movement.   It is quite obvious that they don't have a clue what the Tea Party is or is all about.   And they also seem to be clueless that the American public supporting, by a substantial majority, almost every point the Tea Party pushes if you ask them about those issues separate from the Tea Party.

The one slight shift in Tea Party convictions in recent weeks is that most Tea Partiers would now support a candidate that would vote for some tax increases against deep spending cuts rather than one running on no new taxes alone.  However, those same people worry that given opportunity to raise taxes, Congress would go too far.  So those holding firm on no new taxes aren't hurting themselves so long as they favor spending cuts and caps on spending.

80% Think Any Budget Surplus Should Go To Paying Down the Debt - Rasmussen Reports&#8482;


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

The Tea Party movement has been co-opted by some very crazy folks from beyond the far right, Foxfyre.  I do not mean you at all.  But everyone on that side is getting smeared by the crazies who are trying to use the TP movement for nefarious ends.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Tea Party movement has been co-opted by some very crazy folks from beyond the far right, Foxfyre.  I do not mean you at all.  But everyone on that side is getting smeared by the crazies who are trying to use the TP movement for nefarious ends.



There is no group anywhere that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, probably millions, that does not include a few nuts.  But when crazies from the other side hold up those very few nuts as what the Tea Party is about, what it promotes, what it believes, those crazies are crazier than any Tea Party nuts or they are unbelievably gullible and ignorant to believe it, or they are just plain intentionally dishonest.  Take your pick.

I am heavily involved in the Tea Party movement and watch what is going on very closely.  The liberal Democrats hate the Tea Party because it is anathema to their statist big government desires.  The old guard GOP fears the Tea Party because it exposes their sins and weaknesses that have been evident for some time now and they don't want to give up any power either.

The Tea Party itself, composed of common sense Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, is the nation's best hope to get the nation off the destructive path it is on and back on a common sense track.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Please show me where I said any of the words you've attempted to put in my mouth. Thanks!


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I agree. But the naysayers want it all done before next week.  I think these are the same ones who thought the economy should bounce back to normal in just a few months and blamed it all on Obama when it didn't.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.



Actually the re-annointment of Our Kenyan (President)(Messiah) is essential at this juncture.  Were it not to happen the Grand Depression might be circumvented and hundreds of thousands of twenty-something couch potatoes will never have the opportunity to learn about the benefits of self-sufficiency.  

The people who think that meat is manufactured in the back room of the supermarket.  The people who think that vegetables grow in the supermarket freezer.

OK, so I get low marks for referring to those slugs as "people" but, what the heck, they think they are.  You too?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I am still amazed after weeks, months, and longer of the media getting it so very wrong about so many things, there are still people here who are still swallowing hook, line, and sinker the media trashing of the Tea Party movement.   It is quite obvious that they don't have a clue what the Tea Party is or is all about.   And they also seem to be clueless that the American public supporting, by a substantial majority, almost every point the Tea Party pushes if you ask them about those issues separate from the Tea Party.
> 
> The one slight shift in Tea Party convictions in recent weeks is that most Tea Partiers would now support a candidate that would vote for some tax increases against deep spending cuts rather than one running on no new taxes alone.  However, those same people worry that given opportunity to raise taxes, Congress would go too far.  So those holding firm on no new taxes aren't hurting themselves so long as they favor spending cuts and caps on spending.
> 
> 80% Think Any Budget Surplus Should Go To Paying Down the Debt - Rasmussen Reports



I think the original Tea Party movement had valid convictions, and with the exception of a few radicals who managed to take center stage and diminish their goals in the beginning, they would have done just fine _if those that were elected_ didn't do the same damned thing they all do when they're elected, and that's try to act as though just because you "won," the whole country should do as they say, and when that doesn't happen (of course it won't), they then decide to use unrealistic threats. It goes to the power thing that is innate in human nature. I'm truly sorry this happened, because the Tea Party could have a balancing effect that could go a long way to mediating the historic conflicts between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. But they've gone about it in the wrong way. Instead of using rational approaches, they prefer to use bullying tactics. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There. And I responded accordingly. That I expanded on the point is moot. This is a forum for posting opinions, after all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



"So you would rather see another recession with rising interest rates because our credit would no longer be seen by other countries as being a good investment, resulting in more business failures, more people out of work, more people turning to welfare, all because of the "wisdom" behind borrowing that much money?"

Please show me where I said any of the words you've attempted to put in my mouth.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

If your words logically follow MaggieMae's interpretation of what you said, then you did indeed say it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> If your words logically follow MaggieMae's interpretation of what you said, then you did indeed say it.



I said.....
"I question the wisdom of incurring those debts, not the validity of the debt once it's been incurred"

Too much money was borrowed and spent and wasted on programs that should not exist.
Once the money has been borrowed, the debt must be serviced.

I don't know how she came up with her interpretation, but it is faulty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

Her interpretation of what would happen if the default would happen is correct.

Is that what you want?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Her interpretation of what would happen if the default would happen is correct.
> 
> Is that what you want?



You're slower than usual today.

"I question the wisdom of incurring those debts, not the validity of the debt once it's been incurred"

Get it now?

I want Obama to agree to spending cuts already.
I want Obamacare repealed today.
Maybe those two things would get you what you want, another Obama term.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

No, Todd, you are willing to support the real probability that terrible times will come because of your support for the wrong position on the debt crisis.

The little teabots continue to goose step to the Tea Party march music.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 28, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If your words logically follow MaggieMae's interpretation of what you said, then you did indeed say it.
> ...



But you have to understand the code here.  Leftists get to interpret what is said any way they want to interpret it.

Those who aren't leftists don't.  We usually aren't even allowed to repeat what is actually said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Todd, you are willing to support the real probability that terrible times will come because of your support for the wrong position on the debt crisis.
> 
> The little teabots continue to goose step to the Tea Party march music.



If they can't come to an agreement and Obama doesn't pay bondholders first, I agree, the result will be terrible.
And guarantee Obama's defeat. 
Although with unemployment at 9.2% and heading higher, he's probably already toast.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

The results will guarantee his re-election, for as Alan Simpson just said, the great American center will not blame the center or the left, it will blame the Republican far right.  Believe it.

Todd, your dreams will become nightmares.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> The results will guarantee his re-election, for as Alan Simpson just said, the great American center will not blame the center or the left, it will blame the Republican far right.  Believe it.
> 
> Todd, your dreams will become nightmares.



If they don't agree, Treasury gets to decide who gets paid.
If Obama and Geithner stiff the bondholders, Obama is done.
He'll be lucky to win Illinois.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 28, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Play that Perpetual VICTIM Card! Nobody plays fair with the sweet innocent CON$. 

The day a right-winger ever repeats what is actually said will be the day the world comes to an end!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 28, 2011)

I must confess, I missed the speech.  Did the President invoke the 14th amendment like USAR said he would?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 28, 2011)

The far right extremists do not like context.  They do not like facts.  They hate narratives being twisted to the facts, while they prefer twisting facts to their predetermined philosophies.  They hate the reality in which they live, and ever more are fearful that is going to overcome them.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 29, 2011)

bodecea said:


> I must confess, I missed the speech.  Did the President invoke the 14th amendment like USAR said he would?


Of course not. In the very speech the CON$ perverted to claim Obama would bypass Congress, he actually said he wouldn't!!! The part in red is what they dishonestly used to manufacture their lie.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, I know *some people want me to* *bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.* (Applause.) And believe me, right now dealing with Congress --

AUDIENCE: Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can!

THE PRESIDENT: Believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. (Laughter.)* But that's not how -- that's not how our system works.
*
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it!

THE PRESIDENT: *That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.*

*So let's be honest. I need a dance partner here* -- and the floor is empty. (Laughter.)


----------



## p kirkes (Jul 29, 2011)

Permit me to state the problem as I see it.  Both parties have contributed to massive spending by the feds for decades with no end in sight. 

The Tea party movement has disrupted this paradigm by getting a substantial number of Republican Representatives elected with a vow to reverse this spending trend.

The occasion for implementing this plan is to force the issue using the annual raising of the debt ceiling as the battleground.

The choosing of this battleground is fatally flawed, IMO, because the Republicans do not control two of the three parts of the government needed to pass a bill, the Senate and the Presidency. 

So, the Republican HR passes a bill that then Senate and President will not abide.  The Senate, with the blessing of the President, submits their version but the house will not consider it.  Stalemate.  

The credibility of the players has been staked.  Now, who blinks first will loose.

Say that no one blinks by August 2, will subsequent events, after the default, introduce a new cast of characters?  I would think the Senate and House leadership will resign, the President will announce he will sign a reasonable bill and a compromise will become a reality.

As for the mid to long term, the battle will continue with no clear cut winner and America will have suffered a bit more at the hands of our elected representatives.

(Oh, I deleted the part where I said "God damn them sons of bitches)


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 29, 2011)

Which is why we have all this political theater of delays.  Just a carefully orchestrated plan to use up time.  This forces the House plan to be passed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2011)

Which was not passed last night.


----------



## p kirkes (Jul 29, 2011)

The President just spoke, the House Republicans are still in caucus.  The President, although he said nothing new, stole a march on the House.

The world, literally, is waiting.  I'm going to mow the grass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2011)

Obama made it quite clear this morning that the Tea Party will not decide this issue, that it will be a bipartisan consensus.  Boehner and Pelosi are in phone caucus.


----------



## p kirkes (Jul 29, 2011)

OK, I'm a little slow.  The President and Senate want the house to pass a bill so that it can go to the Senate where it will be revised then that will become the basis for compromise.  Hope there is enough time.

The President waved that Social Security bogyman again.  Taking to my geriatric friends at the local breakfast café revealed a deep animosity toward any one in government right now.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 29, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The results will guarantee his re-election, for as Alan Simpson just said, the great American center will not blame the center or the left, it will blame the Republican far right.  Believe it.
> ...



They won't stiff the bondholders:

#1 - Bondholders
#2 - Military pay
#3 - Social Security benefits


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 29, 2011)

p kirkes said:


> Permit me to state the problem as I see it.  Both parties have contributed to massive spending by the feds for decades with no end in sight.
> 
> The Tea party movement has disrupted this paradigm by getting a substantial number of Republican Representatives elected with a vow to reverse this spending trend.
> 
> ...



I would predict that the President and both leaders (Boehner and Reid) will be the sole occupants of a room to put the deal together at the eleventh hour, just as they did when the tax cuts were set to expire at midnight last December 31st.

But the next round will be the cuts, as it should be.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 29, 2011)

p kirkes said:


> OK, I'm a little slow.  The President and Senate want the house to pass a bill so that it can go to the Senate where it will be revised then that will become the basis for compromise.  Hope there is enough time.
> 
> The President waved that Social Security bogyman again.  Taking to my geriatric friends at the local breakfast café revealed a deep animosity toward any one in government right now.



Nope, the House waits so long that revisions to the bill cannot be made.  If fact, there will barely be enough time for Obama to sign it into law.  This is the whole reason for the delays.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2011)

saveliberty the President will veto the bill if the Republicans do not give the Dems the time and constitutional right to revise and build consensus.

The President will win if the Tea Party pushes it that far.  1 of 5 Americans support the Tea Party and that % is dropping.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> saveliberty the President will veto the bill if the Republicans do not give the Dems the time and constitutional right to revise and build consensus.
> 
> The President will win if the Tea Party pushes it that far.  1 of 5 Americans support the Tea Party and that % is dropping.



Sooo...the whole last year wasn't enough time?  I would really enjoy updating my Constitutional knowledge.  Please cite the constitutional right to revise amd build concensus.  

Maybe next to the Constitutional right to own a free cell phone?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Excellent. No default.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty the President will veto the bill if the Republicans do not give the Dems the time and constitutional right to revise and build consensus.
> ...



Deflection.  The issue is that the Tea Party will not build a consensus and is holding America hostage, saveliberty.  The American people will punish the Tea Party horribly if it continues along its path of destruction.  1 American is not going to hurt the other 4 without getting paid back in full.


----------



## BDBoop (Jul 29, 2011)

Latest:

President Obama Calls on the American People to Make their Voices Heard | The White House


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 29, 2011)

Good.  The peoples' voice must be heard so the hard heads from far left to far right better understand that it is the peoples' need now not the elected's need that must be taken care of.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 29, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No defelction on my part, I answered every question you had asked.  The Tea Party never suggested they were going to DC to make compromises.  Lowering the debt is not hurting America.  People who don't want to address it are.  Seems like 91% of America wants the debt lower.  Since your so fond of numbers.


----------

