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

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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!

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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

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

 

[MaggieMae]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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™

 

[JakeStarkey]

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]

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]

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.

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!

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.

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

 

[MaggieMae]

So you agree with the premise then.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

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.

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

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

"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]

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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]

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

Is that what you want?