AP's Abrams, Quoting No One, Claims That 'Some Legal Scholars' Believe Obama Can Bust Debt Ceiling With 14th Amendment
Gosh, isn't it convenient that Associated Press reporter Jim Abrams, in a Wednesday evening dispatch ("Democrats say Obama should invoke 14th Amendment"), was able to find "some legal scholars" who believe that President Obama can invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to ignore the nation's current debt ceiling and have the government go out and borrow more money, but "somehow" didn't name any? Not only that, he didn't even tell readers why 14th Amendment power creationists might be wrong, let alone find "some other" dissenting legal scholar to explain why. Instead, he instead went to White House spokesman Jay Carney, who only said that the president doesn't have such authority.
I suspect that Abrams' "oversight" occurred because the only "legal scholars" he could have cited would have been uncomfortable Democrats in Congress who don't want to be on record voting against any and every effort to control spending which might be attached to whatever bill or bills House Republicans might attempt to pass -- a matter of fierce internal GOP debate as of late Thursday evening.
Even Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, that lefty of all lefties, in a New York Times op-ed earlier this month ("A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away," with "We Cannot Pretend the Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional" as its browser window title), couldn't abide this ridiculous argument. He also included a now-ironic (and bolded by me) assertion about the Constitution by President Obama himself in his second-last paragraph:
Several law professors and senators, and even Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, have suggested that section 4 of the 14th Amendment, known as the public debt clause, might provide a silver bullet. This provision states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” They argue that the public debt clause is sufficient to nullify the ceiling — or can be used to permit the president to borrow money without regard to the ceiling.
Both approaches provide the false hope of a legal answer that obviates the need for a real solution.
The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred.
Some have argued that this principle prohibits any government action that “jeopardizes” the validity of the public debt. By increasing the risk of default, they contend, any debt ceiling automatically violates the public debt clause.
This argument goes too far. It would mean that any budget deficit, tax cut or spending increase could be attacked on constitutional grounds, because each of those actions slightly increases the probability of default. Moreover, the argument is self-defeating. If it were correct, the absence of a debt ceiling could likewise be attacked as unconstitutional — after all, the greater the nation’s debt, the greater the difficulty of repaying it, and the higher the probability of default.
... The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution.
... Once the debt ceiling is breached, a legal cloud would hang over any newly issued bonds, because of the risk that the government might refuse to honor those debts as legitimate.
... A core function of the Constitution is to “force us into a conversation” about our future, Mr. Obama once wrote.
Tribe's Obama cite is intensely ironic, given that the President has yet to effectively join the conversation by presenting a detailed plan of his own. In fact, in his speech Monday night,
None of this stopped the AP's Abrams from spending 400 or so words on the 14th Amendment option, including a final paragraph containing a reference to "some legal scholars":
House Democrats said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should invoke a little-known constitutional provision to prevent the nation from going into default if Congress fails to come up with a plan to raise the debt ceiling.
Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Democratic leadership, said he told fellow Democrats that Obama should both veto any House GOP plan for a short-term extension of the debt ceiling and invoke the 14th amendment, which says that the validity of the nation's public debt "shall not be questioned."
The White House has rejected resorting to this tactic to keep the nation from defaulting, questioning its legality, but Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, who chairs the Democratic caucus, said "we're getting down to decision time" and "we have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States."
Larson said Clyburn's proposal on the 14th Amendment was met with applause by other Democrats at their meeting.
The post-Civil War 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the United States contains a provision that "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."
Some legal scholars have said the president can invoke that clause to keep the nation from defaulting on the debt, although there is no legal precedent for such an action.
The problem, as Matt Vadum explained in the American Spectator on July 5, is that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that "The Congress shall have Power ... To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." If Congress doesn't authorize it, it can't legally be done. That's about as airtight as an argument can get. Also, as Tribe noted, bond marketers and investors would have a hard time justifying taking an obvious legal risk by buying Uncle Sam's bonds in such a situation. (Snarky aside: But Ben Bernanke and his magical electronic printing machines probably wouldn't.)
As to the AP's Abrams, you're going to have to name names before I believe you actually spoke with someone about the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment debt-ceiling gambit. Until you do, I'm going to interpret "some legal scholars have said" to mean "I personally think it would be a cool idea, as do my Democratic buds in Congress."
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Some say
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:19pm.
Some say Jim Abrams is a goat diddler. Does that make it so?
Oh, that's a fun game to play.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:37pm.
Some say that Jim Abrams thinks it's all right when he enjoys the services of call girls, based on Article IV, Section 2.
Some say that Jim Abrams points to the 21st Amendment as the reason he drinks and drives.
Some say that Jim Abrams, moonlighting as a cab driver, overcharges foreign visitors based on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
--Mike
CA
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:58am.
Only the goats know and Abrams says they are all liars. .
Breaking News: Obama Balances the Budget!
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:26pm.
I thought I would never see the day after duhama's rollout of his budget back in the early part of the year and then the Senate voting it down 97-0 (even his own party disowned on this one)!
Well, here is duhbama balancing the budget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLprXHbn19I
That is a great
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:59pm.
bit. Thanks.
also...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:38pm.
The Constitution also provides for the impeachment of the President by the House if they deem the President has exercised powers not granted to him by the Constitution.
If the DOJ is needed to
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:01am.
enforce it...
Yes, and we could impeach this GD Muslim commie from Hell...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:44pm.
....before he destroys this country beyond repair, but that is far less likely than his moving to circumvent the Constitution yet again.
This country is going to die because it's people are too f'ing stoopid to grasp what is happening.
Wake the hell up, you stupid zombie sheeple.
-Dave.
Vote for the American in November
You could?
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:57pm.
You could?
Balboa
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:22am.
Why not?
Sure you COULD impeach him...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:16am.
but then you'd get tripped up by that pesky 'impeachable offense' glitch and be all embarrassed and wondering why the heck you wasted your time with such silliness.
Jer
Except for all those impeachable offenses...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:49am.
...like the War Powers problem with Libya, seeking to try KSH in a civilian court (thus giving him "aid and comfort"), Operation Gunrunner, and that whole business of publishing a phony document that, were it to be taken at face value, proves Obama doesn't meet a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency.
High crimes. And misdemeanors.
--Mike
Going around the Constitution...
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:34pm.
With Czars that are not approved by the senate but have cabinet authority........ and a dozen other things as well...........
Advisors or Czars [like Hannity and Beck prefer to call them
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:30pm.
to raise the spectre of some sort of behind-the-scenes bolshevik autocrat?]
BTW, Bush had a whole slew of 'em. Did you request your Congressman to file articles of impeachment during his administration because of it? Or is it only impeachable when Democrats appoint them?
Jer
Well, given that many Dems ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:15pm.
... considered Reagan impeachable over Iran-Contra, I wouldn't be too sure.
After all, Iran-Contra at least had a noble cause (freeing hostages). Gunwalker's "cause" is to gin up support for unconstitutional 2nd Amendment restrictions.
IIRC, nobody died directly as a result of Iran-Contra. At least 200 Mexicans, and 2 U.S. law enforcement agents have died as a result of Gunwalker.
Some evidence has surfaced that Obama and Holder knew what Gunwalker was all about. If that's demonstrated, the strength of the case again Obama dwarfs Iran-Contra.
Again, Jer, I wouldn't be too sure.
Every president does
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:29pm.
Every president does something that the other side considers impeachable. How many times does it actually occur? Very few. So every time someone goes off about impeaching Obama, I don't take it very seriously because if there were offenses ACTUALLY worth going after impeachment over, it would happen.
Hasn't yet.
In your opinion Bal, if Obama
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:34pm.
In your opinion Bal, if Obama knew of and approved of "Fast and Furious" which resulted in the deaths of 200 Mexican law enforcement officers and pols plus and uncounted number of other innocent Mexican civilians would that be enough for you to demand impeachment? If Mexicans don't count as humans you care about, how about the border patrol agent(s) who were killed from one of those guns?????
This is not a trick question, I just want to gage the level of the outrageous it would take for you to demand Obama's head.
The question may be a serious one, but the crack
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:44pm.
concerning "Mexicans don't count as humans you care about" is about as cheap as a cheap shot can get. If you're seeking fair debate, why not phrase your questions fairly?
Jer
Touched a nerve did I?
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:46pm.
Touched a nerve did I? Funny, since you have injected yourself in the conversation between Bal and myself, why haven't you been vocal about the murder of literally thousands of Mexicans every year on our southern border by the Drug Cartels? Drug Cartels who benefit directly from Obama's incompetent handling of border security? Were it not for the continuing failure to seal the border, thousands of Mexicans would still be alive. Not that Bush was more effective mind you, since Congress under Democrat instigation repeatedly obstructed the building of the border fence.
I never cease to be amazed at the apathy of liberals towards people living in other countries much less the environment. It's ok if Mexicans get slaughtered in their country because of lacks border security but it's not ok someone gets shot in your own neighborhood and you demand gun control. It's ok if Iraqis are murdered in the market place by al Qaeda blowing up car bombs but it not ok if Johnny and Suzy don't get birth control in grade school. It's ok if oil is pumped out of the ground in less than environmentally sound means in a foreign country, but it's not ok if under stringent guidelines that it is pumped out of the ground in the US. I find the NIMBY self-righteous moralizing of liberals to be just a little too much to stomach.
So the question still stands and is now also directed also at you Jer, is the murder of 200 Mexican government officials plus countless civilians using guns Obama's underlings approved with his knowledge and incompetently handled an impeachable offense? Answer the question and don't bother defending yourself on the first two paragraphs since I'm not going to accept your rationalizations.
Do you think you've jammed enough slander into that pathetic
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:00pm.
lie disguised as a post, dscott? Might as well mix in some more outrageous slop, because I have no intention of further addressing anything so breathtakingly contemptible.
Jer
→ Um, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:11pm.
I think you just addressed it.
Um, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:15pm.
Note the word "further". There's a reason for it.
Jer
Now that's funny
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:20pm.
I don't care who you are. I am sooooo busted.
If you won't respond then
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:17pm.
If you won't respond then here for all the world to see, your man-child-lessor god KNEW!
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579822/201107281902/ATF...
"The latest evidence that both the White House and attorney general knew and approved of Project Gunrunner and its deadly offshoot, Operation Fast and Furious, came this week in the testimony of William Newell, ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix office, before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee."
How's that for liberal morality, slaughtering Mexicans just so he could press for gun control in the US. What a low life weasel! Even if he didn't intend those people to be killed, he caused it by his inept handling of the whole affair. He's the man in charge and he approved the operation by at least condoning it.
Here is some more detail of
Submitted by dscott on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:29am.
Here is some more detail of what your man-child lesser god whom you worship and adore and can do no wrong in your eyes in Fast and Furious:
"The article needs to be read in its entirety to get the full impact, but one notable point is that firearms dealers made sales of AK-47 type weapons that they normally would not have, because they were encouraged to do so by ATF:"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/the-associated-press-cover...
So to advance the political agenda of gun control the Obama Regime had gun dealers SELL AK 47's to the Drug Cartels. Now that's what I call smashing some eggs to make an omelette. Yet, curiously, no outrage at the murders of over 200 Mexican officials and countless civilians. Why, because ... fill in the blank Jer, it's your guy who aided and abetted this evil.
Politically, you liberals have made a horrible mistake supporting Obama in this monstrous outcome, either you condemn the results of Obama's incompetence or risk being labeled as supporters of his actions. For my part, I hope you liberals are stupid enough NOT to throw Obama under the bus since in continuing to embrace him you go down with him. Works for me! So let your ego get the best of you, keep defending, condoning and covering up for the man-child lesser god.
Mike...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:14pm.
Just about every President in my lifetime has been involved in war powers controversies with Congress. Not one has yet been removed from office because of it. KSH? The terrorist being tried in military court? Good luck. Gunrunner? Bad policy, poorly executed, we'll see where the investigation leads. Impeachable...no chance. What phony document do you have in mind?
You know, the cheesy one?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:00pm.
The one on which the forger(s) really did a sloppy job?
The one that's only been seen as an electronic image?
The one that, were it to be actually, tangibly real, would disqualify Obama from being considered a "natural born citizen."
That one.
Impeachable offenses? There's a list, dude.
--Mike
You mean the latest one exposed by Dr. Jerome Corsi and
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:16pm.
Pamela Geller? The "birther" issue that has supposedly been peddled only by the Left STILL LIVES? World Nut Daily is still flying teams of investigators out to Honolulu? Are you for real, dude? Maybe Obama isn't in as much trouble in 2012 as I thought. Sorry to be blunt, but your "list" sucks.
Jer
That doesn't exactly address the issue.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:12am.
And if you have an alternate explanation for why the copy of a "real" document can look so doggone much like a patchwork quilt, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.
--Mike
Actually, it does address the issue...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:58pm.
But I have better things to do than engage in a forensic analysis and continuing debate regarding a matter which should have been considered closed long ago. And, I must say Mike, you are about the last person at this website I would have expected to still be questioning the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.
Jer
Not only is it not closed...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:36pm.
...I think it's the thing most likely to bite Obama in the proverbial hind-quarters.
Here's the problem with his birth certificate, Jer: If it's legitimate, if there's an actual paper original somewhere, Obama's not Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. And if it's not legitimate, if it's the forged, phantom construct it appears to be, he's committed an impeachable offense with which no one could quarrel.
I take that last observation as a compliment, Jer, so thanks. Consider that, after looking at the pros and cons (and having no dog in the hunt either way), I do not believe it at all to be a real, legitimate document. And I'm hardly the tin-foil-hat type.
--Mike
No, Jer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:29am.
you made a small error in direction. It's the LSM still flying reporters to Alaska. :)
Too bad the White House
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:49pm.
disagrees. WaPo:
“That’s our position,” Carney
Submitted by Dan Diego on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:48am.
“That’s our position,” Carney said. “And the president stood here and told you; we consulted to see what this was about, but it’s just -- you know, it is not an option.”
The fact that the Constitutional perfesser explored this avenue is scary.
→ "That's our position"?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:48am.
Don't get all huffy there Carney, but I'm pretty sure the President shared that same position with Robert Gibbs, too.
So what were you saying about "compromise"? That being your "position" and all that stuff.
By the way, Carney, a "position" doesn't allow for compromise.
Carney put on a masterful performance today...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:20pm.
Meticulously demolished every GOP argument put forward. Reminiscent of Tony Snow at his best.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:31pm.
You must have seen a different performance than I did. Carney whined and side stepped, as well as pointed fingers.
He's Obama's mouthpiece all right. Sounded just like him.
Whining and sidestepping is a
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:12am.
Whining and sidestepping is a liberal musical show tradition. You remember the musical, Music Man? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI Here is the essence of the Dem strategy.
No, Tony Snow was incredible and he is greatly missed.
No, Tony Snow was incredible
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:32am.
No, Tony Snow was incredible and he is greatly missed.
Indeed he was and is and I've never even hinted otherwise. I had enormous respect for Tony.
I missed the first portion of today's briefing, but I watched the remainder that was telecast and Carney was excellent.
If we would just...
Submitted by Order270 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:53pm.
...balance the effing budget, we wouldn't need to even worry about a debt ceiling.
that should be the goal
Submitted by botg on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:55pm.
now what strategie will actually get us there?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
That is exactly...
Submitted by Order270 on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:19pm.
...the question we have to start asking toward establishing a baseline for fiscal policy.
Ok, why can't we just raise
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:57pm.
Ok, why can't we just raise the debt ceiling like we have under the previous four presidents?
Because we have finally run
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:03pm.
Because we have finally run out of the walls to support it.
Ask S&P
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:14pm.
and Moody's.
Just Maybe...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:21pm.
...because the current president has spent more than the previous four combined?
debt ceiling = credit card limit
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:26pm.
Why don't we increase your credit card limit? Does it matter if you can pay it off or not? That's what the debt ceiling is. It shouldn't have been raised in the first place, but there it is.
In the real world, if someone had been spend happy like this, their credit card would have been declined and even discontinued. At the very least, it needs to be reduced, IE spending cuts.
Yes, it's just that simple. It's just a big load of flat-out bullsh!t to say "raise the debt ceiling to pay the interest." You still have the original problem that just got compounded by putting money back into it, in other words, IT'S NOT A SOLUTION!
Spending cuts, discontinuing wasteful programs(including the czars, the agencies like EPA, FDA, TSA, etc, and most notably OBAMACARE) are part of what's needed. That ain't going to happen as long as we have the spendaholics in both houses.
-Jon
Because raising the debt ceiling
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:53pm.
was a "failure of leadership". Ears said so, before he voted to borrow another trillion dollars, just before the election, that's why. If it was failure of leadership then, it's even more of a failure of leadership now. Because he had the "vision" to see it back then and point it out. WE certainly wouldn't want to make a hypocrite out of your dear leader, would we?
Where were you, bal?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:29am.
Where were you when Senator Obama, speaking on the Senate floor, proclaimed George Bush's request to raise the Debt limit showed a failure of leadership?
Where was your indignance when ALL 48 DEMOCRAT SENATORS refused to vote for raising the Debt Limit in March 2006?
Suddenly, you come at the subject as the voice of reason because your Democrat buddies want what they want when they want it?
Why are you not echoing Obama's own words back at him, that he is a failed leader?
Cool...Aside from the fact he has repeatedly
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:33am.
said he regretted doing so, you are well aware that it's one thing to make a protest vote knowing it's merely symbolic because the other side has the numbers to carry out its and the president's wishes, but quite another for an implacable Congressional faction bloated with an overinflated sense of self-importance to bully the government to the very brink of debt default unless every single one of its demands is met without even a hint at compromise.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:15am.
Just curious when did he say he regretted it?Like April of this year?Gee wonder why he changed his mind?Gee nice spiel there Chris I mean Jer.Hard to ,tell you two apart.Keep up the good work! MSNBC needs a few good men.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/11/obama-debt-ceiling-vote_n_84762...
well99...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:29pm.
You know very well I'm no flak for MSNBC so how about knocking off that pathetic lie immediately. You should be above that.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:46pm.
Actually I don't know that.Especially after that bull about Obama repeatedly said he regretted doing it.Five years later he says this.Wow gee you may buy it but don't peddle that bs .He regrets someone is doing the same to him is all.That is definitely is MSNBC material.Maybe the Dems last year should of taken care of this.You do know they have been in the majority since jan 2007 right?They held the majority till Jan this year.Seems Dems with their selective memory keep forgetting that.I sure you brought up about them being
"implacable Congressional faction bloated with an overinflated sense of self-importance to bully the government to the very brink of debt default unless every single one of its demands is met without even a hint at compromise."
How could things get so out of control with the debt?Didn't Obamacare get passed?why would they push that if our debt was so out of control?Oh I know it all happened in the last 3-5 ,months.Say Hi to Big Ed.
well99...Review tthis please.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:39am.
Handicapping the Debt Ceiling Debate
Donald Marron | Posted on January 14, 2011, 7:00 am
Sometime this spring, Congress will vote to increase the debt ceiling. That vote won’t come easy. Newly ascendant House Republicans will threaten to withhold needed votes unless significant spending cuts or budget process reforms are attached to the measure. Democrats will denounce Republicans for threatening the government’s ability to pay its bills. And Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will be forced into creative financing moves to buy Congressional leaders enough time to strike a deal.
But strike a deal they will. With monthly deficits running around $100 billion, the United States can’t cut spending or increase tax revenues enough to avoid further borrowing this year. It is equally inconceivable (I hope) that our elected leaders will decide to withhold payments from Social Security beneficiaries, our military, and our creditors.
So the debt ceiling will go up. And that means that at least 50 senators and more than 200 House members will cast a politically toxic yea vote.
Which lucky members will they be? The answer may well depend on what other budget provisions accompany the debt limit measure. That’s impossible to handicap today. In the meantime, though, we can look at past votes. They tell a clear story: debt limit votes are about politics, not principle.
Consider, for example, Senate votes on stand-alone debt limit measures over the past decade:
When Republicans held both the Senate and the White House (2003, 2004, 2006), they provided virtually all the yea votes, while almost all Democrats voted no. When the Democrats were in power (2009, 2010), the roles reversed: the Democrats provided all but one of the yea votes, while Republicans voted no. Only when government was divided – with a Democratic Senate and a Republican president (2002, 2007) – has the vote to lift the debt limit been bipartisan.
The House has taken fewer stand-alone votes than the Senate (because of the so-called Gephardt rule, which the Republicans abolished last week), but they show the same pattern: the party in power votes to increase the debt limit:
History thus suggests that Democrats will bear the burden of lifting the debt limit in the Senate; expect at least 50 yea votes. The only interesting question is whether individual Republicans filibuster the increase; if so, a 60-vote cloture measure would require at least 7 Republican votes as well.
Handicapping the House is more difficult since we’ve had no recent experience with divided government. If the Senate provides any guide, roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats will ultimately vote for an increase. That would allow many Tea Party-backed Republicans to vote no without affecting the outcome. And other members might simply skip the vote. That’s what 21 members did in 2004, when it took just 208 votes to raise the debt ceiling.
Note: Congress increased the debt limit three other times during the past decade as part of larger bills: the 2008 housing act, the 2008 TARP act, and the 2009 stimulus. For simplicity, I have included all votes by Independents with the Democrats, since that’s how those members caucused during this period.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:26am.
You notice this?
"When Republicans held both the Senate and the White House (2003, 2004, 2006), they provided virtually all the yea votes, while almost all Democrats voted no."
Where was the compromise?
Just a note:Geithner warns congress on debt ceiling this was 6 Jan 2011 Dems were still in charge.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2011/01/us_will_reach...
→ I noticed it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 8:24pm.
I also noticed Obama proclaiming a request for a raise in the Debt Ceiling showed a lack of leadership. He should not show such pride, now, in being such a successful liar.
Now check out the graphs published at the same
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:48am.
site. Notice a pattern with respect to the voting on raising the debt ceiling? Notice who compromised in 2007 when there was a divided government? That's because the Dems behaved like grown-ups while these new GOP kids, many of whom signed a personal pledge to Lord Grover Norquist, would bring down the country as long as it took Obama down with it. Well, it may put a Republican in the White House in 2012 and it may save their seats, but good luck putting the pieces back together out of the financial wreckage they will have caused.
Who caused the financial
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:24am.
Who caused the financial wreckage? Who controlled Congress from 2007 to 2010? That was Democrats. Who racked up the deficit spending to an unheard of $1 trillion plus per year? That was Democrats. And now you blame the GOP for wanting to restrain the rate of increase as causing the wreckage? Sorry Jer, the public is not buying that line, they know who caused the mess, the Democrats, that's why they lost the 2010 elections and will probably lose the 2012 elections. It's time to bow to reality.
But not all is lost for you Jer, the GOP will not roll back the $1 trillion annual the spending increase that Pelosi and Reid added on to federal spending. They are only restraining the increase of future spending. You have won the game, the US will continue to spend in 2012 what they spent in 2011 and 2010. You should be estatic about that, so why the condescending talk about the GOP? You should accept the 120% of the loaf you got and quit whining about the 150% you wanted.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:35am.
So what about the other years?Just a note: Since Congress writes the bills who had a vested interest in raising the Debt Ceiling.Also the Dems controlled the Congress.
Whose flak are you then if
Submitted by dscott on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:03am.
Whose flak are you then if not for MSNBC? /snark/
I had to Jer, you put your foot right in it and I couldn't resist. hehehe
dscott...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:05am.
I'm an unapologetic flak for my own opinions--no one else's. :-)
Jer
btw...I obviously don't even know how to spell "flack". I think I'll go with "shill".
Totally agree, Jer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:44am.
Seriously, could you get Harry Reid and the dems to stop that? That is who you referenced in "implacable Congressional faction bloated with an overinflated sense of self-importance to bully the government to the very brink of debt default"?
Heck, UpNorth
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 2:02am.
John "get your asses in line" Boehner can't even control these implacable knaves who have pledged their political souls to Lord Norquist. The freakin' Speaker of the House was forced to call off the vote on the GOP plan for the SECOND STRAIGHT DAY because these feckless lads would rather send him back to tending bar in Ohio rather than exhibit any loyalty other than to Norquist.
Jer
"Tending Bar"
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:54pm.
You're a Special Ed fan, Jer? I had thought better of you than that. What's next, you'll tell us that Maddow is a serious newser?
So, the Tea Party R's stood their ground, and you find that objectionable? You really have problems with people who pick their position, and stick to it, unlike the squish sisters from Maine, for instance?
You mean the guy I've done nothing but mock
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:09pm.
relentlessly for the past couple of years and called for his permanent dismissal from MSNBC? Is THAT the Special Ed you're referring to? If so, then no, I'm not a fan. I am a fan of John Boehner, however.
I don't have problems with people who stick to their positions. I do have a problem with signing juvenile oaths to Lord Norquist which superglues naive politicians to positions which may eventually become counterproductive--all for the sake of foolish pride and a fear that Lord Norquist will come to their district at election time and beat them over the head with their pledge, if violated.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:29pm.
"Aside from the fact he has repeatedly said he regretted doing so."
He is a hyper-partisan, radical leftist, POS, BS-artist politician of the highest order and on an unprecedented scale.
He's caught, again, red-handed, so he's "repeatedly" "regretting it" whenever called on it, I gather (according to you, and on the rare occasion it happens by the filthy MSM, or any outlet not named Fox News.)
Why do you and bal stubbornly remain gullible, idiot* Liberals? (*idiots when it comes to this stuff.) It makes no sense whatsoever.
- Shy Wax
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I'm not indignant, just
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:47am.
I'm not indignant, just asking a question.
But don't let that stop the roll you're on.
And as usual, bal
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:52am.
you fail to answer any of the questions Cool Arrow posed to you.
Typical.
They're not very good
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:31am.
They're not very good questions.
Yes ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:18am.
... they are, pal.
Tom, "pal," so you think it's
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:35am.
Tom, "pal," so you think it's relevant to ask where I was when Obama proclaimed George Bush's request to raise the Debt limit showed a failure of leadership?
I have no idea. I probably wasn't as aware of the debt ceiling issue as I am now.
Where was my indignance when ALL 48 DEMOCRAT SENATORS refused to vote for raising the Debt Limit in March 2006?
I had no "indignance" in 2006. I have none now.
Suddenly, I come at the subject as the voice of reason because my Democrat buddies want what they want when they want it?
No, I'm asking a logistics question because we seemed to have avoided this problem before.
Why am I not echoing Obama's own words back at him, that he is a failed leader?
As covered above, I didn't know about his previous statement.
Commenters here answered your question
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:49pm.
The least you can do is answer theirs ... and they are relevant, because they show how two-faced the left is, and (by your own admission) how relatively uninformed you are about matters (like Obama's 2006 resistance to the debt ceiling based in partisanship, not based in a desire not to spend) brought up recently. The White House has even had to acknowledge that Obama wishes he hadn't done that in '06.
Obama's debt-ceiling votes
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:54pm.
detailed here.
The questions were uninformed
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:59pm.
The questions were uninformed themselves, as I wasn't being two-faced about anything, wasn't indignant about anything. So all they did was show I don't know much about the history of debt ceilings.
THANK GOD we uncovered that nugget of info...
bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:11pm.
"So all they did was show I don't know much about the history of debt ceilings."
Then if you're admittedly ignorant or ill-informed about so many things -- this just being the latest example -- then perhaps don't chime in and just read our articles and posts/comments.... and learn.... and then, slowly but surely, come out of the darkness and into the light, to our side. No wait, you've been "with us" for years now and you remain stuck on stupid (on Liberal.)
I'm sure over the past 48 hours alone, plenty of people have mentioned Obama's 2006 reverse vote, so no need to play ignorant that you didn't learn that by now.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I ask questions to learn
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:19pm.
I ask questions to learn opinions and reasons for things. Since there are knowledgable people on this site, I didn't really think it was a huge indiscretion to ask why we couldn't just raise the debt ceiling again.
bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:26pm.
This site is full of smart, knowledgeable people, where you learn about things and the reasons behind things.
So you're still a liberal... because?
I ask this with zero snark because, literally, when I go to a left-leaning site, the level and amount of ill-informed and outright stupid (on matters political and social) members is palpable. There's very little intelligence and true, educated, independent thought going on there.
- Turntable Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Let's be honest that there
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:38pm.
Let's be honest that there are plenty of crazy people on this site, too, who would rather find an excuse to use the term "libtard" for the zillionth time and laugh like a nut job than actually carry on a conversation.
Those on left-leaning messageboards are usually nuts, too, and I don't really identify with them either.
I hover towards the center because I don't find either side to have all the answers.
The "Center"
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:49pm.
"Sitting on the fence is a great way to get splinters in your arse.". --Tom Adkins, July 3, 2010 speaking at Morristown Tea Party Rally
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I think most people are just
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:00pm.
I think most people are just left or right of the center, trying not to get distracted by the hysterical raving of the extremes.
I never thought that "living
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:13pm.
I never thought that "living within your means" was extreme, but that's just me.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I never said it was extreme,
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:54pm.
I never said it was extreme, did I?.
Curious
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:19pm.
And like Mr. Shy, I ask this with zero snark as well, but what do you call "hysterical raving of the extremes?"
We have the lib dems that have called Republicans "extremists" because they want to cut spending or invoking the Constitution while at the same time, they "poo-poo" the Constitution as something to be changed or used when convenient or twisted, such as Clyburn and his VERY faulty interpretation of the 14th Amendment citing a non-existent justification to raise the debt ceiling. And that's just one of the more minor examples, hell, when Pelosi was asked about the Constitutionality of the health care bill, she responds "are you serious, are you serious?" THAT to me is extreme coming from an elected representative expected to obey and defend the Constitution.
-Jon
Most of the time when any
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:58pm.
Most of the time when any politician brands the othe side as extreme, it's just posturing.
Extreme to me is people claiming that Obama wants to become a dictator and convert America to Islam, or claiming, truly believing, that Bush wanted to impose himself as king. Those are examples.
bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:39pm.
Well, I sort of addressed this further down, with regards to voting "present" on debatable issues.
Let me also add this:
Me: Obama very much wants a centralized, controlling, totalitarian-esque government that takes our money and makes decisions for us, and that also acts as our primary (nearly our sole-) employer. Obama, and Dems in general, very much have a "I know what's best" mentality. It's in their liberal DNA. I won't begin to roll out the endless list of policies, major power-grab moves and myriad other examples that make my case air-tight. You've been here long enough, and have been presented with the mountain of evidence, but I guess you just don't care, so you remain a-okay with Obama.
Me: Also, if Obama is of any faith -- and, again, with the laundry list of facts (his upbringing, his background, his associations thorugh the years) -- it would clearly be Muslim over Christian. Agnostic or atheist is a possibility, too, but I would not put one thing past this lying POS snake, or his radical secular or islamic (he has them) handlers to be pulling the wool over our eyes. Muslims also lie and pretend to be anything on behalf of their cause. It's a sick "religion".
So there, I'm extreme, bal. No, wait, I'm not. I am just forming a very educated and informed opinion.
- Shy @ 33 1/3 RPM
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
How is it "clearly" Muslim
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:50pm.
How is it "clearly" Muslim over Christian?
And for every "power grab" you claim, people could make the same claims about Bush. Neither of you are right IMO.
These are extreme conclusions.
Mr. Shy is an extremist
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:53pm.
Coming to "extreme conclusions". And here's why bal thinks so:
Bal thinks there's an equal -- or better and more "sane" -- argument for Obama being Christian over Muslim (if we have to pick one.) Or, if we say non-religious, that's okay in his book, but consider him Muslim and we're not thinking straight? And yet, staring directly at you are these facts:
- His last name is one handed down in his Muslim family heritage
- His middle name, Muslim
- His paternal grandfather, Muslim
- Father and stepfather, both Muslim
- Mother -- all we know is she was a radical secularist/atheist, or just agnostic, who married two Muslims for some reason.
- Grandparents were both Christian, but no indication they were hard-practicing.
- Has many close ties to hardcore atheists and, more importantly, Muslims, back in Chicago:
- ties to Farrakhan, a Muslim
- reported ties to members of Muslim Brotherhood
- Supports representation of "all groups" in Egypt, which clearly includes the Muslim Brotherhood, and he doesn't seem to care.
- In Jakarta, spent two years in a Muslim school
- Then two more in a Catholic schoo (so, those two even out)
- The "Christian" church he hung out at was the most un-Christian, hate-filled, radical church you can think of.
- Running for President, there's no way in hell that any Muslim could run being openly Muslim and get voted in. Zero chance.
- Lastly, back to the direct lineage to Islam on his father and grandfather's side, there's this:
"While Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim."
So, bal, when we tally all this up (and there's more, but I don't have all night) how in the world -- in any way, shape or form -- can you call those of us (millions, really) who actually consider the Muslim angle "extreme". If you shook off your Obama-love and Muslim-denial, you would probably say the ones who call him Christian are extreme. Seriously.
I'll lay out all the ways that he's power-grabbed and stealthly pushed through policies that are of the extreme socialist variety next time.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:38pm.
"I hover towards the center because I don't find either side to have all the answers."
Bal, I took a major blow to my ribs the other week playing basketball, and they are still tender. Laughing (or coughing) continues to hurt, so side-splitters like this bring me pain. Pleae, have some mercy.
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Because...?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:00pm.
Because...?
Because...
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:21pm.
You're not being honest with yourself, or with us.
What other political sites do you hang out at, daily, challenging the posters on almost every article and issue?
Also, people who claim the "sane" center I find to always be full of themselves. First off, it's a mythical premise that "left - center - right" equals "extreme - measured - extreme". All ideological labels consist of one side or the other of any issue. Being "center" doesn't mean you routinely take a pass on "extreme" opinions (which, translated, means: having a real opinion.)
To me, you'd be truly in the center if you were concretely for some things on the liberal side, and almost equally favoring the conservative side of other issues. In other words, being rather eccentric.
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
"You're not being honest with
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:27pm.
"You're not being honest with yourself, or with us."
How so.
"What other political sites do you hang out at, daily, challenging the posters on almost every article and issue?"
None.
"Also, people who claim the "sane" center I find to always be full of themselves. First off, it's a mythical premise that "left - center - right" equals "extreme - measured - extreme". All ideological labels consist of one side or the other of any issue. Being "center" doesn't mean you routinely take a pass on "extreme" opinions (which, translated, means: having a real opinion.)"
People are always poo-pooing someone who claims to be near the center. I have opinions, which you've seen, but I don't think I'm too irrational about them, and on most I'm willing to listen to other arguments. On the other hand, I don't think capitalism is the root of all evil, that we should all be vegans, etc.
"To me, you'd be truly in the center if you were concretely for some things on the liberal side, and almost equally favoring the conservative side of other issues. In other words, being rather eccentric."
I consider myself socially left, but there are limits. I also think many conservative fiscal principles to be more sensible, at least ones I'm familiar with.
let's air it all out, then, bal
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:52pm.
"I have opinions, which you've seen, but I don't think I'm too irrational about them"
Okay, and I'm not in the center at all, so I'll be Exhibit A here. Any "irrational" opinions that I've spouted that you can name, off the top of your head?
"I don't think capitalism is the root of all evil, that we should all be vegans, etc."
You like meat, okay. And capitalism, to you, is... not completely evil. So what is it, to you? Is it the best thing out there? Or, wait, it's not perfect, you might say? Your thoughts.
"I consider myself socially left, but there are limits. I also think many conservative fiscal principles to be more sensible, at least ones I'm familiar with."
More non-specific I'm Mr. Center/Rational Guy hot air. Break it down for us. What are the limits to what you can stomach socially with liberalism? What things do you like, too, in their social "progressive" agenda? Which conservative fiscal principles do you like, and not like?
In short, give us your full list of real opinions on things.
"What other political sites do you hang out at, daily, challenging the posters on almost every article and issue?"
"None."
Thanks. You have strengthened my argument yet some more.
- Shy Spins
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
1. No, but I don't keep a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:04pm.
1. No, but I don't keep a file system of all your opinions.
2. Capitalism is not perfect (what is), and it can be twisted and abused. But it's the best system and it's created a tremendous amount of what makes America, America.
3. Limits to my stomach? PC has gone overboard, people who think we shouldn't eat meat I don't get, violent reactions to anything on the right are too dramatic. I hate it when people think they're entitled to handouts when they're capable of helping themselves.
I think gays should be able to get married. I don't think TV is trash, not all of it at least, and don't think it along with the music industry is responsible for the downfall of western civilization.
Parents should learn how to be parents again and quit trying to be best buds with their kids and telling them they're always right. I believe in dodgeball and competition in gym class at the earliest ages. Competition is not something we should dissuade young kids from.
I don't think taxes should pay for every stupid government-funded idea, only some of them.
I don't believe in affirmative action.
OMG
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:06pm.
Your a frelling right wing extremist!...lol
→ Affirmative Action
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:35pm.
The left has its own nasty little traditions when it comes to Affirmative Action. Take Boeing's attempt to move to South Carolina. Washington State has 3% Blacks while South Carolina has 30%.
Obviously, the President with his appointees at the NLRB want to keep those union jobs in a lily-white State, rather than increase the chances that blacks might have opportunities in South Carolina to develop a sense of self-sufficiency. Democrats like the control they exercise over Blacks. It makes y'all feel powerful.
Yes, I'm sure that's what
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:39pm.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it's all about...
→ Bal
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:25pm.
The whole point of being a conservative is to be decidedly not in the center. Inasmuch as the entire sociopolitical structure of this country has lurched to the left, today's conservatism is very much yesterday's center.
Wow Shy
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:59pm.
You and the left have common ground.They say the same thing about people who consider themselves centralist.Kudos.Some people are center and has nothing to do with being eccentric.It has to do with issues.You don't have to like it and you can come up with all this yahoo stuff.It don't make it true.You have the right to your opinion but it don't make it facts.
well
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:04am.
Then maybe I am an "extreme" right-winger. I've been spending all night trying to get bal to call me one, and what do I end up doing? Getting a fellow conservie/centrist ( ? ) calling me one instead. :p
And I'd love for you to show me these leftists calling BS on centrists. I don't see it.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Mr Shy
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:38am.
Hmm I called bal that.You might notice it is right under his comment.
"Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:04pm.
1. No, but I don't keep a file system of all your opinions.
2. Capitalism is not perfect (what is), and it can be twisted and abused. But it's the best system and it's created a tremendous amount of what makes America, America.
3. Limits to my stomach? PC has gone overboard, people who think we shouldn't eat meat I don't get, violent reactions to anything on the right are too dramatic. I hate it when people think they're entitled to handouts when they're capable of helping themselves.
I think gays should be able to get married. I don't think TV is trash, not all of it at least, and don't think it along with the music industry is responsible for the downfall of western civilization.
Parents should learn how to be parents again and quit trying to be best buds with their kids and telling them they're always right. I believe in dodgeball and competition in gym class at the earliest ages. Competition is not something we should dissuade young kids from.
I don't think taxes should pay for every stupid government-funded idea, only some of them.
I don't believe in affirmative action."
reply
OMG
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:06pm.
Your a frelling right wing extremist!...lol
next
in
reference
to
this
"Mr Shy"
"And I'd love for you to show me these leftists calling BS on centrists. I don't see it."
I have seen it plenty of times.Before I ever went to NB I was a member of Kos Kids,Huff and Puff, and Media Manipulation.It happened all the time.Same stuff.. sitting on fence .can't make up mind and not willing to take a stand so on and so on.I used to be a centrist.Shoot I still go back to Huff and Puff but of all the years there I have only had 5 or 6 post that didn't get to the curb.The bottom line is as I stated before it is about issues.
well99...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 12:48am.
What the heck were you trying to post at HuffPo? There are scores of very conservative members who comment there all the time, and as long as the posts are not profane or personally abusive, they can and do get away with saying just about anything they please.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:08am.
I know that but I went to Huff and Puff long before NB.I've been here 4 years.I have gone back...funny thing they still wont let my post thru.It has been about 6 months since last try and no I don't swear and troll them.Believe it or not I'm much calmer there then here.It kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.You know you can't miss so your more relaxed.
If it's any consolation, well99...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:12pm.
I've attempted to post a comment at HuffPo only four or five times over the course of approximately 4 years or so, and I think only two of them were actually published. One was rejected apparently because I used the term "arse". That's how strict they've gotten. Conservatives generally can get away with posting some pretty aggressive remarks [again, barring profanity or direct personal attacks] because they know that while they may subject themselves to some moderate ridicule, the really abusive counterattacks won't make it past the monitors.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:01pm.
I kid you not I didn't use swear words or type a$$ like this.I wasn't trolling but there are many on there that are afraid of facts.They must be because they don't use them.I may seem quiet and reserved but I not really...) Anyhow I would challenge them and it would never go thru.Maybe I am on the black list.I would ask them to back it up with facts.It is a whole lot better than when I first joined.That was years ago and it was a cluster flock.
well99...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 5:10pm.
I agree about the improvement in tone. I attribute it to the full moderation of comments which I believe was implemented in the aftermath of some really shameful remarks when Tony Snow died.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 6:50pm.
That could be also not sure it was Huff or Kos Kids but they had wished Nancy Reagan fell in her bath and broke her neck or something.It has improve since the old days.Still there is some yutts on there but you will see others get on them occasionally.
Tom...I suspect the absent indignancy of the "left"
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 3:13pm.
over Obama's and other Dems' resistance to the debt ceiling in 2006 can be found in the same hole of hypocrisy which contains the missing indignancy of much of the "right" over the support by nearly all of the Repubs for raising the debt ceiling on that same occasion. [Was THAT support based on partisanship or principle? I think you know the answer.] The votes routinely split along party lines, so singling out Obama's "no" vote ignores much of the context surrounding it.
Of course most of those debt ceiling measures involved a "clean" vote--not an exercise in extortion by attached conditions as is the case in the current madness.
Jer
What do you mean I'm
Submitted by Dan Diego on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:42am.
What do you mean I'm overdrawn? I still have checks!!!
Thats a great oldie.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:05am.
Thats a great oldie.
Obama Asks For a Record Shattering Rise in Debt Ceiling
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:09am.
Thanks to the dumbing down by public schools few people today have a "feel” for numbers. But the last debt ceiling increase would have taken care of all Bush deficits of the first seven years. Now he wants enough debt to cover two more years at his rate of spending.
The percentage of national debt to GDP is now where it reached at the height of WWII but WWII ended and we began paying debt down immediately. This year we go over our WWII peak and Obama and Reid want to keep spending at the same rate in an endless war on poverty that we are losing.
Today is 816 without a budget
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:40am.
Each and every time that happened under the previous four presidents, we had a budget, we had a plan.
Today is 816 without a budget, without a plan.
How can you raise the debt ceiling without knowing what it will be spent on?
BTW, what is the point of a “debt ceiling” if you keep raising it?
Boss...
Submitted by BurnInHellObama on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:05pm.
Boss! De plane. De plane.
That's where these people live.
Sure he breaks the 14th
Submitted by Tjexcite on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:12pm.
And it prevents a default. then what. How much will he EO raise it to. Full removal so there is no limit or will he raise it to run out in 2013 after the election. It will be hit again no mater what number they put it to and no cut will stop it only prevent it from happening again. The cuts they are talking about will have it happen on Tuesday at 5pm when with out the cut it would hit it on Monday at 2am.
But that is what fundamental transformation looks like.
More morons than you can shake a stick at
Submitted by Skragnon on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:19pm.
Let's rape the old girl some more, shall we? Read the words of the section, and you can't even possibly consider the approach valid. Well, I take that back. They are statists after all, which means any contortion is valid if the end result is something desired.
Now, I know they can read, but let's put it out there for consumption.
Amendment 14, 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."
The section basically says that any debt incurred by the US government is valid, and will be paid. Any debt incurred by the Confederate government is null and void. That's what you get for backing the wrong horse.
Skragnon
Oh, and I heard Rush talking
Submitted by Skragnon on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:21pm.
Oh, and I heard Rush talking today that due to base line budgeting that if you froze spending at the levels of today's spending, the CBO would end up scoring that as a $9,000,000,000,000 cut in the budget.
$9 TRILLION just by freezing spending at current levels. Let's go that route instead, hmmm?
Skragnon.
The key is "authorized by law".
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:22pm.
Article 1, Section 8 empowers only Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States - not O'bat-ears.
This would be the constitutional crisis of the century and would all but guarantee Ear Leader the boot in 2012.
In your professional opinion
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:31pm.
Do you think he'll do it? He's already stated that he's tempted to, and he has said in the past, he wishes he could rule like in China, which isn't the same as governing. We already know the Constitution in its current form doesn't matter to him, and I say current form because of their desire to "re-interpret" it, and that blooming idiot clyburn is wanting him to do so.
I'm thinking he would try, based on your previous assessments of this manchild. In fact, at this point in this crapped out game, I'd be VERY surprised if he doesn't try. So the next question to ask is, will Congress intervene in this Constitutional crisis should he take that action? I honestly don't know if they would anymore.
-Jon
Just goes to show
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:21am.
"They are statists after all, which means any contortion is valid if the end result is something desired."
Similar to taqqiya,is it not? or pravda?
NVCon
This can only apply to the Civil War
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:25am.
The section basically says that any debt incurred by the US government is valid, and will be paid. Any debt incurred by the Confederate government is null and void. That's what you get for backing the wrong horse.
Skragnon
Close, very close.
The section basically says that any debt incurred by the US government FOR the Civil War is valid.
This is so narrowly written it can only apply to the Civil War.
“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.”
How many insurrections or rebellions have there been 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 can only apply to the Civil War.
I disagree. It would apply
Submitted by Skragnon on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:43am.
I disagree. It would apply during any period of "insurrection and rebellion", and as we know the statists consider the Tea Party, et al an insurrection against their rule.
Thus follows their thinking that this is even an option.
Skragnon.
true
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:21pm.
Ya got a point!
bat $hit crazy talk
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:25pm.
After hearing Nancy Pelosi's bat $hit crazy talk today ya got a point!
I saw the dem's spokesidiot expounding on this,
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:56pm.
earlier tonight. It was that noted intellectual, and constitutional scholar, James Clyburn. As Bugs said, "what a maroon"!! Then he excused himself to go out with Hank Johnson, looking for islands in danger of tipping over.
Bal...
Submitted by Hog_Flambe on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:09am.
Doing the same thing over and over again doesn't make it right.
You might want to visit Madison's Copious notes on the debates regarding the Executive " power."
Correct me if I'm wromg
Those assembled spent more time debating what to name the office than the actual authorithy powers.
I'm tired of of emperors.
This is an old Katie Couric
Submitted by Van Halen on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:15am.
This is an old Katie Couric trick:
"SOME say..."
"...but SOME disagree..."
"Yet SOME have said..."
"Still, SOME are unconvinced..."
We never met 'SOME'. But Katie always was able to find them whenever she needed and opinion against any and all things Conservative.
"Some legal scholars
Submitted by celator on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:20am.
"Some legal scholars say..."
Ah, we are officially informed these aren't everyday ambulance chasers. No siree. And they ain't asbestos lawyers, either. Them thare lawyers AP is quoting is legal "scholars." Got the diploma to prove it, too. They don't have names, of course. But there are there, somewhere, maybe laughing it up in a K Street bar in Washington. They're the ones with the shiny sharkskin suits.
Hahaha, oh you of puny
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:47am.
Hahaha, oh you of puny vision, just because the Article 1, section 8 says Congress has the power to authorize budget expenses and borrow doesn't mean the special ONE doesn't either. Where in the Constitution does it say the POTUS DOES NOT HAVE the power to raise the debt ceiling? Remember whom we are talking about here, the Usurper in Chief. Barack Obama is special, he can do anything he wants as long as you don't stop him, and if you try, you're a racist.
Haven't any of you learned after two and half years in Obama's reign of incompetence that he can lie, break the law and do as he pleases because he is THE ONE? The law doesn't apply to him, really, it's that simple. You hamstring yourselves under this silly notion that he is supposed to follow the rules and then act all shocked when he doesn't. Honestly, if this were George W Bush, he would have been impeached within the first 12 months, not so with Barack Obama. You see, as a lawyer, Obama learned a very important operating principle in American law, condoning, IF you don't object or physically stop him from doing something, he is free to do it as long and as often as he pleases. As far as he is concerned, if he is not charged with a crime then it is not illegal, even if it were a crime, if there is NO punishment mandated by law, again it's not illegal. No where in the Constitution is usurpation a crime, there is no punishment for usurpation and therefore there is no limit to what he can do if he should decide to do it. By the way, that is the essence of how the Commerce Clause is interpreted, the federal government can do what it darn well pleases, screw the 9th and 10th amendments, its called "name it and claim it."
The Sestak bribery attempt should have yielded an impeachment. He has repeatedly flouted the law when it comes to enforcement. The entire deal with GM and Chrysler was a financial fraud, again Obama was directing that show and should have been impeached. We are still bombing Libya, screw the War Powers Act. Etc, etc, etc.
I predict based on Obama's past behavior that IF the debt ceiling isn't raised he will unilaterally raise the debt limit by himself under emergency decree. He will cite the fact there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says he can't. It doesn't matter what powers were specially delegated to Congress, because he will say Congress hasn't acted using those powers and in NOT doing so they have forfeited their exclusive use of that power, so he must for the good of the country do as he pleases.
Sadly, dscott, everything you said is true.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:52am.
I think that the Bogus Potus lives by the "if you don't use it, you lose it" philosophy.
True as far as it goes.
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:17am.
Bitterly, horridly true.
The only good of his unilateral effort would be that it would destroy not only our finances but any chance of his second term. Provided, of course, that using 'emergency decrees' doesn't get good to him and he doesnt decide to cancel 2012 'for the good of the country, Me'.
Right now I set the odds of a 2012 election even taking place at 11:10 in favor. If BHO goes to 'emergency decree'...
Keep your powder dry.
NVCon
The 14th Amendment? What about the 10th Amendment?
Submitted by big.league.slider on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:00am.
You have to love the lib's selective use of the Constitution. Apparently, they've found some obscure interpretation of the 14th amendment that allows Obama to borrow as much money as he sees fit. But as for Article I, section 8, and the 10th amendment, they don't even exist.
The whole discussion of how a balanced budget amendment (the 28th?) will solve our country's spending problems is just as ludicrous. A new constitutional balanced budget amendment will simply be ignored, just like the rest of the existing constitutional amendments are.
Think about it. Boehner wants a balanced budget amendment, and the first thing he wants to do after passing it is to violate it by borrowing more money.
UUSWA
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:06am.
“was able to find "some legal scholars" who believe that President Obama can invoke Section 4
but "somehow" didn't name any?”
He's the guy from UUSWA “Unnamed Unknown Sources With Accolades”.
The Constitutional / Unconstitutional legal scholars section.
The also Climate section, Economist section among many more!
I don't know their dot com address but their physical address
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
frigging stupid
Submitted by Injest on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 4:58am.
"which says that the validity of the nation's public debt "shall not be questioned."
And who is questioning the nation's public debt? There is no question, we have a debt, its huge, and must be paid.
Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, who chairs the Democratic caucus, said "we're getting down to decision time" and "we have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States."
The “fail safe” mechanism is to not spend more than you take in! How frigging stupid do you have to be to NOT get that?
that "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."
The “insurrection or rebellion” they were talking about was the Civil War!
“authorized by law” For services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion!
“debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties” For services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion!
Boehner was mocked in January 2011 when . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:02am.
. . . he had the entire US Constitution read aloud on the floor of the House.
But look at how many Democratic Senators and Representatives don't understand it. Someone claims that the President has authority under the 14th Amendment and they all go off parroting the claim.
The language very clearly pertains to the Federal and state debts accrued during the Civil War. Sen. Boxer, Rep. Clyburn, and the rest need to sit down and READ the Constitution, and if they're that stupid that they can't understand the language, they need to consult Constitutional lawyers.
If the Dems want to ignore context in Constitutional language, they can have fun with this excerpt from Article IV, Section 4 . . .
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . "
Does this mean that the Federal government should remove all Democratic elected officials from state offices and replace them with Republicans?
Wouldn't be opposed to that
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:17am.
Given that the current Dems are a bastardization of the Democratic Party of the past, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing them removed. And there's nothing in the Constitution that says it can't be done, if we follow the Dems' methodology of interpreting the Constitution where they say "It didn't say we COULDN'T do it!"
-Jon
Good morning Galvanic
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:56am.
Who are you going to get to teach those blockheads to read?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Jeebus
Submitted by donabernathy on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 7:46am.
Maybe some O dem Legal scholars outta take a his story class b fer dey offer an O pin n on da 14th. B sides dey could just use da good n plenty clause but den again what da hell do I no..... I ain't been 2 all 57 states..... I'm just wait n 4 da country to tip O'ver and capsize.
roflmao
What the 14th Amendment means: No Bankruptcy
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 2:19pm.
The 14th Amendment doesn't deal with raising debt, it deals with debt obligations. What it means is that the Government is obligated, by the Constitution, to pay it's debts in full. They can't be declared invalid by an act of Congress, a Judicial ruling, or an Executive Order, which means no bankruptcy options, no means of which the government can eliminate it's debt other than paying it off in full.
The government isn't obligated to pay any other debt, like the debt the Confederates accrued. But it MUST be obligated to pay off it's own debts. In other words: The debt held by the government must be recognized by the government itself, and must be paid. If you "cash in" a T-Bill, that money must be paid, the government's obligation to pay off its debts can not be denied by the government itself.
Debt limits themselves don't actually exist in the Constitution. Those types of limits, that "credit eligibility," is supposed to be regulated, limited, by the private sector, not the public sector. This means private individuals and businesses, banks and investors. It is the private sector who determines what limits should be placed on any person, or any business, or any government's, ability to borrow money. The debt limit laws were intended to safeguard the government's ability to borrow money, to keep the government's credit ratings high. It does NOT allow the government to set it's own credit worthiness.
Raising the debt limit will not prevent a debt" crisis," will not prevent a downgrading of the government's credit rating. It will, most likely, lead to a degrading of the government's ability to borrow money, a downgrading of the Government's credit availability. What happens when the debt obligations, the year debt payments themselves, rise higher than the yearly revenue that is collected? The government can NOT, I repeat, can NOT, declare bankruptcy, thanks to the 14th Amendment, so what will happen? The government will be forced to liquidate, to sell off it's assess, just as it has in the past, to pay off its debt obligations. That's the only possible outcome to continually increased debt obligations by our federal government. And THIS is what both sides are avoiding in their "debates" and "discussion" about this very issue. The federal government is spending this country into oblivion, just as so many governments have done in the past . THIS MUST END, before we, as a country, do.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Even if you froze levels for
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:40pm.
Even if you froze levels for a 9 Trillion Dollar "savings", there's still that pesky 1.6 Trillion Dollars budget deficit that hasn't been addressed. Spending has to be frozen at 2007 levels or even 2006, so that the budget deficit would be no more than 400 Billion Dollars, a decrease of One Trillion Dollars in the budget, which additional spending was rapaciously added by the democraps in the past three years.
BTW, Laurence Tribe, one of
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 6:24pm.
BTW, Laurence Tribe, one of the top notch LIBERAL legal scholars had two opinion pieces in the Wash ComPost a week or more ago, where he fileted and skewered the legal reasoning of those who claim the President has executive or constitutional authority to raise the debt limit all by his lonesome. While there are few matters where I agree with Mr. Tribe, his scholarly objections to the crazy 14 Amendment, nuclear option, is a must read. One can also go to patterico's site for other in depth legal analysis destroying the claim of presidential authority to raise the debt limit under the 14 Amendment.