Obama's 'Going to Violate the Constitution, Unilaterally Lift the Debt Ceiling'

[beretta304]

How so?

1.2% annual GDP growth baby - economy is on FIRE, Obama Akbar!

I smell the smoke.

 

[hazlnut]

How so?

1.2% annual GDP growth baby - economy is on FIRE, Obama Akbar!

I smell the smoke.

You live in Washington State?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So agreeing to spending is agreeing to borrowing?

Yes.

 

[g5000]

yeah. that's not even close to analagous

Really?

So agreeing to spending is agreeing to borrowing?

Yeah, it's not "close," it's identical.

Leftist "logic" in action.

BTW, when Obama committed U.S. Forces to help Al Qaeda oust Quadaffi in Libya, how much did Congress approve, spending wise? No doubt that approves Obama borrowing in contradiction to the constitution, right?

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

 

[elvis]

yeah. that's not even close to analagous

Really?

So agreeing to spending is agreeing to borrowing?

Yeah, it's not "close," it's identical.

Leftist "logic" in action.

BTW, when Obama committed U.S. Forces to help Al Qaeda oust Quadaffi in Libya, how much did Congress approve, spending wise? No doubt that approves Obama borrowing in contradiction to the constitution, right?

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

Who agreed to spend that money?

 

[g5000]

Really?

So agreeing to spending is agreeing to borrowing?

Yeah, it's not "close," it's identical.

Leftist "logic" in action.

BTW, when Obama committed U.S. Forces to help Al Qaeda oust Quadaffi in Libya, how much did Congress approve, spending wise? No doubt that approves Obama borrowing in contradiction to the constitution, right?

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

Who agreed to spend that money?

Congress.

Congress holds the purse strings. Congress appropriates. That is their Constitutional duty.


.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Really?

So agreeing to spending is agreeing to borrowing?

Yeah, it's not "close," it's identical.

Leftist "logic" in action.

BTW, when Obama committed U.S. Forces to help Al Qaeda oust Quadaffi in Libya, how much did Congress approve, spending wise? No doubt that approves Obama borrowing in contradiction to the constitution, right?

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

Who agreed to spend that money?

Our elected officials.

 

[elvis]

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

Who agreed to spend that money?

Congress holds the purse strings. Congress appropriates. That is their Constitutional duty.


.

correct. but which congress?

 

[hazlnut]

Agreeing to spending, when you don't have enough money, is agreeing to borrow. How can you be so dense as to not see that simple equation?

And you really don't want to go down the road of unilateral military action by Presidents.

.

Who agreed to spend that money?

Congress.

Congress holds the purse strings. Congress appropriates. That is their Constitutional duty.


.

I've tried giving these fringe-right dopes a civics lesson.

It's hopeless.

Acorn rigged the election, remember.

 

[ogibillm]

Who agreed to spend that money?

Congress holds the purse strings. Congress appropriates. That is their Constitutional duty.


.

correct. but which congress?

all of them. they can make changes as they please.

 

[g5000]

Congress appropriated more money than there are in revenues. Therefore, Congress knew when it appropriated the money that it would require borrowing which would push us past the current debt ceiling.

This is not hard to comprehend if you truly want to. It is very simple.

If you have a credit card with a $10,000 limit and a $9,900 balance on it, then you purchase a home stereo system on Amazon with the credit card, you know that purchase will go beyond your credit limit.

You know you will have to request the bank to increase your limit before you can buy the stereo system.

So when your wife calls the bank to increase the credit limit, what special kind of asshole would you have to be to say she is a dumb financially irresponsible bitch?


That's the GOP today. Spending and then cussing out the Executive for having to ask for a credit limit hike to cover the spending.

.

 

[elvis]

Who agreed to spend that money?

Congress.

Congress holds the purse strings. Congress appropriates. That is their Constitutional duty.


.

I've tried giving these fringe-right dopes a civics lesson.

It's hopeless.

Acorn rigged the election, remember.

i never said acorn rigged anything, numbnuts. Fringe to you is anyone to the right of Karl Marx.

 

[MeBelle]

STFU, idiot.

IRONY ALERT: You started it dumbass... so how does your foot taste?

Shit for brains.

For hazlnut...

 

[jgarden]

Obama's 'Going to Violate the Constitution, Unilaterally Lift the Debt Ceiling'

Given that the President requires the cooperation of the House to pass a spending bill, isn't the lifing of the debt ceiling necessary to pay for those monetary commitments based on legislation that Boehner and the Republican/Tea Party have already passed?

The big losers in a federal government financial default would be American businesses in the private sector - given the hard economic times many of these would be facing bankruptcy!

Isn't American business the very group whose best interests our GOP "friends" claim to represent?

 

[Politico]

No he's not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

“We’ve never had a president that’s spent like this ever. Ever. That’s why, in particular right now, the debt ceiling is so crucial, because there’s no other way to stop him.

Isn't there a Schoolhouse Rock explaining what the branches of government do? If so, find it and review it so as to understand where spending comes from.

I suggest you watch that same episode, it probably has something about vetoes in it.

 

[jgarden]

The Constitution of the United States

Article1 (Section 7)

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Given that all revenue bills must originate in the House how can it, in good will, impose a debt ceiling on expenditures that it has already approved?

Who would be the primary victims of a federal government default - American business and workers!

 

[Decus]

Part of the problem has been that we continue down a path of spending appropriations to meet our obligations and have not put a full-blown budget to a vote in some time. In essence we have no plan for the present and no vision for the future. Who does this benefit??

"Our ruling

Sen. Corker says it has been more than three years since Congress passed a budget and that this year, not a single appropriations bill has made it the Senate floor. The record shows that he has his facts straight.

While other Republicans have tried to lay the blame for the lack of a budget at the feet of Democrats, Corker does not specifically apportion blame just one party. He simply chastised the Senate in general for failing to pass a budget and we rate his statement as True."

PolitiFact Tennessee | Bob Corker says Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years

This seemed to be a source often viewed as favoring liberal politics.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Part of the problem has been that we continue down a path of spending appropriations to meet our obligations and have not put a full-blown budget to a vote in some time. In essence we have no plan for the present and no vision for the future. Who does this benefit??

"Our ruling

Sen. Corker says it has been more than three years since Congress passed a budget and that this year, not a single appropriations bill has made it the Senate floor. The record shows that he has his facts straight.

While other Republicans have tried to lay the blame for the lack of a budget at the feet of Democrats, Corker does not specifically apportion blame just one party. He simply chastised the Senate in general for failing to pass a budget and we rate his statement as True."

PolitiFact Tennessee | Bob Corker says Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years

This seemed to be a source often viewed as favoring liberal politics.

See my signature below.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Constitution of the United States

Article1 (Section 7)

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Given that all revenue bills must originate in the House how can it, in good will, impose a debt ceiling on expenditures that it has already approved?

Who would be the primary victims of a federal government default - American business and workers!

To do so would make the law ambiguous. The President would have to choose between following the spending laws and breaking the ceiling laws, or following the ceiling laws and breaking the spending laws. When the law is ambiguous in this manner, courts will rule that someone can choose which to be in compliance with and which to violate. So either choice by the President is Constitutional and in line with his authority and duties.