If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Let's hope the President can hold the red line he's drawn this time   (m.motherjones.com) divider line 89
    More: Unlikely, Obama, Jack Lew  
•       •       •

1284 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 8:50 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-27 08:52:51 AM
Of course, subby means "again."
 
2013-09-27 08:53:13 AM
The only good republicans are dead republicans
 
2013-09-27 08:56:08 AM
I seriously hope Obama doesn't blink. Let Republicans try and spin everything as someone else's fault while Rome burns. Destroy your party shiatheads. Do it... Do it.
 
2013-09-27 08:57:22 AM

Slappy McLongstockings: The only good republican politicians are dead unemployed republican politicians.



better
 
2013-09-27 09:01:41 AM

unexplained bacon: Slappy McLongstockings: The only good republican politicians are dead unemployed republican politicians.


better


incarcerated republican politicians also works.
 
2013-09-27 09:03:02 AM
14th Amendment, baby
 
2013-09-27 09:04:43 AM

crab66: I seriously hope Obama doesn't blink. Let Republicans try and spin everything as someone else's fault while Rome burns. Destroy your party shiatheads. Do it... Do it.


GOP: "We refuse to borrow money to pay for the stuff we bought! And no, we absolutely will not increase revenue to pay for our own spending!"
 
2013-09-27 09:05:48 AM

hiker9999: unexplained bacon: Slappy McLongstockings: The only good republican politicians are dead unemployed republican politicians.


better

incarcerated republican politicians also works.


not bad at all
 
2013-09-27 09:09:37 AM
Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.  As much as I advocated for Obama over Hillary during the 08 primaries, I really think we need Hillary as president right now.  I don't see her folding under pressure from the right the way Obama does.
 
2013-09-27 09:10:33 AM

clkeagle: crab66: I seriously hope Obama doesn't blink. Let Republicans try and spin everything as someone else's fault while Rome burns. Destroy your party shiatheads. Do it... Do it.

GOP: "We refuse to borrow money to pay for the stuff we bought! And no, we absolutely will not increase revenue to pay for our own spending!"


They are already trying to spin things as the debt being money Obama spent, even when someone on CNN reminded them they hold the power of the purse, not Obama.  The shrill Rep persisted in trying to deflect blame from the congress and the GOP though.
 
2013-09-27 09:12:23 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Of course, subby means "again."


Well, whatever Obama does we can at least rest assured that it is absolutely wrong because he did it.
 
2013-09-27 09:12:58 AM

Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.


I won't be voting for Obama again, that's for sure.

I didn't know Bob Dole was running again.  Besides, he's a Republican.
 
2013-09-27 09:13:02 AM

Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.


Far better than your knuckle headed Republican masters will. Oh, and you seem to have it backwards, it's the Teatards driving the country off the cliff. But you know that.

Does being a shill for scumbags pay well, or do you just like being associated with pathological liars and morons willing to let the country burn because the President is a Black Democrat?
 
2013-09-27 09:13:08 AM

Antimatter: They are already trying to spin things as the debt being money Obama spent, even when someone on CNN reminded them they hold the power of the purse, not Obama.  The shrill Rep persisted in trying to deflect blame from the congress and the GOP though.


Of course they are. Just like a cat with a wet face and paws tries to say someone else is responsible for the missing goldfish.
 
2013-09-27 09:13:24 AM

Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.


Is "BOB" writing, passing, and signing his own bills now? Someone ought to put a stop to this!
 
2013-09-27 09:14:10 AM

crab66: Destroy your party shiatheads. Do it... Do it.


How do you think this will destroy their party?  I would love to see it but I don't see anything piercing the bubble at this point.
 
2013-09-27 09:14:26 AM
Stop responding to Aristocles
 
2013-09-27 09:15:03 AM
yeah, yeah Obama sure you won't cave, I believe in you!
 
2013-09-27 09:16:15 AM

GoldSpider: Is "BOB" writing, passing, and signing his own bills now? Someone ought to put a stop to this!


I have been told time and time again that he is a ruthless micromanaging dictator who is personally socializing us into poverty with every action he takes. And that all he does is take golfing vacations.
 
2013-09-27 09:17:08 AM

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

 
2013-09-27 09:19:32 AM

clkeagle: GoldSpider: Is "BOB" writing, passing, and signing his own bills now? Someone ought to put a stop to this!

I have been told time and time again that he is a ruthless micromanaging dictator who is personally socializing us into poverty with every action he takes. And that all he does is take golfing vacations.


To India. On a special aircraft that's fueled by aborted citizens and the gold that used to sustain a noble backed currency.
 
2013-09-27 09:22:26 AM

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


Okay :(
 
2013-09-27 09:22:56 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

 
2013-09-27 09:23:03 AM

Aristocles: LittleSmitty: Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.

Far better than your knuckle headed Republican masters will. Oh, and you seem to have it backwards, it's the Teatards driving the country off the cliff. But you know that.

Does being a shill for scumbags pay well, or do you just like being associated with pathological liars and morons willing to let the country burn because the President is a Black Democrat?

I'm not a repub... I once had faith in the Teabagger movement, but they've let me down... I suspect (since it looks like the repubs will cave to BOB), that another movement of even more Patriotic, Constitutional Conservatives will come in to sweep out the dusty, old GOP and so-called "teabaggers." Then maybe we can begin to recover from the damage done by BOB, the dems, and to a certain extent the GOP.


Not a repub, but "had" faith in Tebaggers. So what are you exactly, besides a conservative shill? "Libertarian" that votes straight ticket GOP?
 
2013-09-27 09:23:43 AM

Notabunny: 14th Amendment, baby


Or a trillion-dollar coin.  I can see either happening, and whether either does happen is entirely in the GOP's court. I would be just about anything that 1) Obama IS serious about not negotiating the debt cieling, and 2) he won't let the country default.
 
2013-09-27 09:23:48 AM

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


Seconded
 
2013-09-27 09:24:01 AM

sprawl15: To India. On a special aircraft that's fueled by aborted citizens and the gold that used to sustain a noble backed currency.


That's right - on a trip that costs hard-working Christian taxpayers no less than $250,000/hr.
 
2013-09-27 09:24:56 AM

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


I'm fairly conservative and disagree with the current administration on numerous issues...

...and he's now on my ignore list, which is a bit of a rare distinction as I hate using ignore.  Being a troll is one thing.  Being boring, tiresome, and generally worthless is another altogether.

/debt ceiling fight is stupid
//most of the modern GOP also
///GOP primaries are farking depressing
 
2013-09-27 09:25:41 AM

Smoking GNU: Seconded


And we can stop mentioning him as well.
 
2013-09-27 09:26:03 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.


i dunno... i think this is part of his vaunted "long game." i think he's been spoiling for this fight for a while, knowing that the GOP couldn't resist taking the bait. and now he's got the double-whammy of the shutdown AND default, which shows that the GOP is completely willing to burn the US economy to the ground because it didn't get its way.

this sets the dems up for a sweep in '14 and '16 (and beyond, if the GOP doesn't purge the teabaggers from its midst).
 
2013-09-27 09:26:24 AM

LittleSmitty: So what are you exactly, besides a conservative shill? "Libertarian" that votes straight ticket GOP?


An admitted troll whose login rhymes with "herpes" and is just as resilient and apparently incurable.
 
2013-09-27 09:26:54 AM
"This time."

I'm sorry, what about the Syria thing didn't you like? They're being disarmed of their chemical weapons and we didn't have to fire a shot, and thanks to the dick-waving and Russia taking advantage of the situation, we even saved face. It could have gone a lot worse, like the last decade. What are you unsatisfied about how it turned out, and do you really value some weird sense of looking good in the eyes of the international community over sending our soldiers to die in a morally murky war?
 
2013-09-27 09:28:14 AM

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


^THIS

And BOB is not a politician.  This is BOB:
plancksconstant.org
 
2013-09-27 09:28:51 AM

Aristocles: So Obama is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.


No Obama is simply not willing to negotiate with terrorist, foreign or domestic.
 
2013-09-27 09:29:15 AM

Bloody William: "This time."

I'm sorry, what about the Syria thing didn't you like? They're being disarmed of their chemical weapons and we didn't have to fire a shot, and thanks to the dick-waving and Russia taking advantage of the situation, we even saved face. It could have gone a lot worse, like the last decade. What are you unsatisfied about how it turned out, and do you really value some weird sense of looking good in the eyes of the international community over sending our soldiers to die in a morally murky war?


THIS

and anyone who thinks that kerry's "gaffe" of offering the syrians an out by giving up chemical weapons was an accident is fooling themselves. that was deliberate for sure. and it worked.
 
2013-09-27 09:29:31 AM

PoweredByIrony: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

^THIS

And BOB is not a politician.  This is BOB:
[plancksconstant.org image 270x267]


Stop trying to make BOB happen. BOB is never going to happen.
 
2013-09-27 09:31:27 AM

MindStalker: Aristocles: So Obama is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.

No Obama is simply not willing to negotiate with terrorist, foreign or domestic.


FYI: you're responding to a well-known troll who popped up here a couple of months ago. if you put him on ignore, you'll be better off.

i38.tinypic.com
 
2013-09-27 09:31:27 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.  As much as I advocated for Obama over Hillary during the 08 primaries, I really think we need Hillary as president right now.  I don't see her folding under pressure from the right the way Obama does.


That may explain Republican's fear of Hillary. There's a more overt aggressiveness there. We knew Obama was going to approach the presidency as a team builder, but he's stuck with that failed idea for too long. I don't think Hillary would take 5 minutes to re-learn that lesson.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-27 09:38:58 AM

Aristocles: Right leaning libertarian according to those "political compass" tests. Sometimes further right/down than others, I've taken it several times over the years.


You know who else was to the right of tea baggers?
 
2013-09-27 09:39:15 AM
President America! The GOP won't raise the debt ceiling!

Shut
DOWN
EVERYTHING
 
2013-09-27 09:41:16 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.  As much as I advocated for Obama over Hillary during the 08 primaries, I really think we need Hillary as president right now.  I don't see her folding under pressure from the right the way Obama does.


That's the primary (and maybe only) reason I supported Hillary in '08.  I remembered the GOP's antics during the Clinton administration, and thought it could be just as bad this time around (little did I know how bad it would be).   One of the things I admired about Bill Clinton at the time was his general refusal to put up with republican BS, a rarity among democrats at the time (and still today, unfortunately).
 
2013-09-27 09:44:04 AM

doyner: Notabunny: 14th Amendment, baby

Or a trillion-dollar coin.  I can see either happening, and whether either does happen is entirely in the GOP's court. I would be just about anything that 1) Obama IS serious about not negotiating the debt cieling, and 2) he won't let the country default.


These two. Obama made a mistake when he let the clowns get a "deal" on the debt ceiling in 2011. Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional
 
2013-09-27 09:47:58 AM
If the Democrats controlled 1/2 of 1 of 3 branches of government and they pulled shiat like this, I'm sure the GOP would just roll right over and give them everything that they wanted.

And really, this kind of behavior basically frees the Democrats up to do just that in the future if the GOP does win the majority again.

Which makes you wonder if they really expect to be in that position at all...
 
2013-09-27 09:50:38 AM

hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional


If that's possible without a default actually happening, this is precisely what needs to happen.
 
2013-09-27 09:56:00 AM

hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional


That probably would not play out like you think it would.

Congress is enumerated with the power to borrow money. The debt ceiling laws are Congress deciding to grant borrowing authority (up to a limit and with caveats) to the Executive. If those laws are found unconstitutional, then the situation defaults to Congress needing to specifically authorize all borrowing.
 
2013-09-27 09:56:24 AM

doyner: Smoking GNU: Seconded

And we can stop mentioning him as well.


QFT.
 
2013-09-27 09:56:50 AM

hershy799: doyner: Notabunny: 14th Amendment, baby

Or a trillion-dollar coin.  I can see either happening, and whether either does happen is entirely in the GOP's court. I would be just about anything that 1) Obama IS serious about not negotiating the debt cieling, and 2) he won't let the country default.

These two. Obama made a mistake when he let the clowns get a "deal" on the debt ceiling in 2011. Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional


I'm sure the teabaggers are eager to show where the debt ceiling is mentioned in the Constitution.
 
2013-09-27 09:58:25 AM

Craptastic: doyner: Smoking GNU: Seconded

And we can stop mentioning him as well.

QFT.


Seconded.
 
2013-09-27 10:00:32 AM

Notabunny: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.  As much as I advocated for Obama over Hillary during the 08 primaries, I really think we need Hillary as president right now.  I don't see her folding under pressure from the right the way Obama does.

That may explain Republican's fear of Hillary. There's a more overt aggressiveness there. We knew Obama was going to approach the presidency as a team builder, but he's stuck with that failed idea for too long. I don't think Hillary would take 5 minutes to re-learn that lesson.


And I think that's a lesson people have learned.- I think her reputation as being too aggressive will actually be an asset in 2016 instead of a liability. She's well positioned right now.
 
2013-09-27 10:02:13 AM

mcnguyen: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.  As much as I advocated for Obama over Hillary during the 08 primaries, I really think we need Hillary as president right now.  I don't see her folding under pressure from the right the way Obama does.

That's the primary (and maybe only) reason I supported Hillary in '08.  I remembered the GOP's antics during the Clinton administration, and thought it could be just as bad this time around (little did I know how bad it would be).   One of the things I admired about Bill Clinton at the time was his general refusal to put up with republican BS, a rarity among democrats at the time (and still today, unfortunately).


Yeah his total refusal to work with the GOP like welfare reform or repealing a bunch of financial reforms. Clinton worked with the GOP on a lot of things, and a lot of bad things. Like DOMA and DADT. Don't go all Saint Reagan.
 
2013-09-27 10:03:40 AM

sprawl15: hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional

That probably would not play out like you think it would.

Congress is enumerated with the power to borrow money. The debt ceiling laws are Congress deciding to grant borrowing authority (up to a limit and with caveats) to the Executive. If those laws are found unconstitutional, then the situation defaults to Congress needing to specifically authorize all borrowing.


Actually it is more complicated than that. Congress authorized spending, which the president is required to spend. However, the debt ceiling is the point where money can no longer be borrowed. So, the President is placed in an impossible position because he is legally required to spend the funds but unable to spend the money because it does not exist for all intents and purposes.

In addition, the president has the legal duty to ensure the United States does not default on its obligations. Therefore, the only correct finding would be to say that by passing a budget, the congress has implicitly authorized an increase of the debt ceiling to the extent it is necessary to carry out the budget.

In other words, congress can't go around running up bills all over town without also authorizing a way to pay said bills.
 
2013-09-27 10:03:44 AM

Aristocles: LittleSmitty: Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters. We'll see how the dems fare in the next elections.

Far better than your knuckle headed Republican masters will. Oh, and you seem to have it backwards, it's the Teatards driving the country off the cliff. But you know that.

Does being a shill for scumbags pay well, or do you just like being associated with pathological liars and morons willing to let the country burn because the President is a Black Democrat?

I'm not a repub... I once had faith in the Teabagger movement, but they've let me down... I suspect (since it looks like the repubs will cave to BOB), that another movement of even more Patriotic, Constitutional Conservatives will come in to sweep out the dusty, old GOP and so-called "teabaggers." Then maybe we can begin to recover from the damage done by BOB, the dems, and to a certain extent the GOP.


On the plus side, the trains will run on time.
/Maybe I should open a store specializing in brown shirts.
 
2013-09-27 10:11:08 AM

GoldSpider: hershy799: Hell, I hope that he plays the 14th amendment card so butthurt Republicans can file suit, only to have SCOTUS knock down debt ceiling laws as unconstitutional

If that's possible without a default actually happening, this is precisely what needs to happen.


"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

I don't have a GED in law or anything, but this does seem pretty clear-cut to me.
 
2013-09-27 10:13:11 AM

zeroman987: Actually it is more complicated than that.


No, I get all that. But the fact remains that it's clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has sole power to borrow money. What had to happen originally was Congressional action on every individual act of borrowing. The debt limit laws were a way to simplify the whole deal. Repealing the laws would default it to that original state, as that is the legal question. The position the President is put into would be a political question, and generally not judicable. For example, the War Powers Resolution has been considered unconstitutional by every sitting president since it's been passed but it is actually a law. The courts have ruled that because the question is not legal ('what does the law say') but rather political ('what should the law say'), they have no grounds to resolve the dispute.

That's a very similar case to the specific enumeration of borrowing, where the Constitution is in a weird grey area and cannot be relied upon as a primary source.

Another possible way to rule, for example, would be that Congress must specify borrowing and that anything unfunded simply doesn't happen (including something in the budget and actually doing it are distinct actions, remember). Another way to rule would be that the President is given discretionary authority to cut the budget to make up the gap; Congress passes a budget with a 1 bil deficit, the President is allowed to trim 1 bil in spending from that budget. But no matter which way it's ruled, some part of the Constitution is going to have to be violated.
 
2013-09-27 10:13:28 AM
He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.
 
2013-09-27 10:31:01 AM
When the people disaffected by the wealthy rise up and begin to kill them, things will change.

When a fed up parent of a child denied food and medical treatment kills a bunch in a country club, it will be justice given to those that have done everything in their power to poison people and not take any responsibility for it.  Stop shooting people in McDonald's...those aren't the ones killing your kids so they can have a nicer car and a private jet.

Unless the wealthy fear death from those they exploit, they will just continue to kill them and profit.
 
2013-09-27 10:31:16 AM

DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.


Pretty sure he admitted negotiating last time was wrong and since he doesn't have to run for election again or seem "reasonable" to the dc mongoloids he's not going to fark that up.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!
 
2013-09-27 10:34:58 AM

doyner: PoweredByIrony: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

^THIS

And BOB is not a politician.  This is BOB:
[plancksconstant.org image 270x267]

Stop trying to make BOB happen. BOB is never going to happen.


How about if BOB's a guy with no arms and no legs floating in a pool?

/hung out with a 10 year old last night
 
2013-09-27 10:47:34 AM

PoweredByIrony: /hung out with a 10 year old last night


Why don't you have a seat, right over there.
 
2013-09-27 11:02:13 AM

Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters.


So you are saying Obama will not be elected President in the next election.

You must be some kind of genius.
 
2013-09-27 11:09:24 AM
If the best counter-proposal he can come up with is Sequestration 2, it's best he not negotiate.
 
2013-09-27 11:17:30 AM
Actually, he's already "caving". Didn't he sign the bill fixing the debt ceiling where it currently is? There was his "red line". Since then, he's been very busy, redefining the military coup in Egypt so he can send them money that would be better spent fixing bridges here, and granting exemptions to his "Affordable Care Act." (Hint: If it was really "Affordable", exemptions wouldn't be necessary, now would they?).
 
2013-09-27 11:18:06 AM

sprawl15: zeroman987: Actually it is more complicated than that.

No, I get all that. But the fact remains that it's clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 that Congress has sole power to borrow money. What had to happen originally was Congressional action on every individual act of borrowing. The debt limit laws were a way to simplify the whole deal. Repealing the laws would default it to that original state, as that is the legal question. The position the President is put into would be a political question, and generally not judicable. For example, the War Powers Resolution has been considered unconstitutional by every sitting president since it's been passed but it is actually a law. The courts have ruled that because the question is not legal ('what does the law say') but rather political ('what should the law say'), they have no grounds to resolve the dispute.

That's a very similar case to the specific enumeration of borrowing, where the Constitution is in a weird grey area and cannot be relied upon as a primary source.

Another possible way to rule, for example, would be that Congress must specify borrowing and that anything unfunded simply doesn't happen (including something in the budget and actually doing it are distinct actions, remember). Another way to rule would be that the President is given discretionary authority to cut the budget to make up the gap; Congress passes a budget with a 1 bil deficit, the President is allowed to trim 1 bil in spending from that budget. But no matter which way it's ruled, some part of the Constitution is going to have to be violated.


In this case, I think you are focusing on the wrong actor. My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take. In essence, they are saying that if you do not rubber stamp whatever we want (destroying the executive's check on the legislature), we will either force you to unconstitutionally default on the debt or unconstitutionally borrow money. Because they are bound to pass only Constitutional laws, they should also be barred from passing laws that require another branch of government to violate the constitution.

Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.

Moreover, you are correct in saying that passing a law and carrying out a law are two different actions. However, the executive carries out laws, not congress. Because the president is bound to carry out the laws passed by congress, congress must approve the means to carry out said laws, otherwise, the whole system breaks down.
 
2013-09-27 11:35:47 AM

SpectroBoy: Aristocles: So BOB is willing to drive the country off a cliff... remember this, voters.

So you are saying Obama will not be elected President in the next election.

You must be some kind of genius.


If you called him an idiot savante, you would at least be half right.
 
2013-09-27 11:51:52 AM

SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!


You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!
 
2013-09-27 11:56:18 AM

tfresh: SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!

You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!


You farking mouth breathers. The debt is being reduced at a rate unseen since ww2, and its actively hurting our economy and yet you idiots want more. Except when you don't like more tax cuts, more corporate subsidies, and more military spending.

Not to mention the farking debt ceiling isn't increasing more debt its paying for bills your mouth breathers already rang up.
 
2013-09-27 12:04:11 PM

SenorBenedict: tfresh: SenorBenedict: DamnYankees: He's gonna have to - if he gives in and negotiates AT ALL on this, he's essentially changing America's constitutional structure.

The stupid thing is despite what the beltway "BOTH SIDES!" wants to claim, americans will hold the GOP primarily responsible BECAUSE THEY farkING ARE RESPONSIBLE! It drives me nuts when idiots on tv go "The gop is worried they might get blamed" THEY farkING SHOULD BE WORRIED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS!

You're saying they should be blamed because fighting stacking on more debt is a bad thing?

well I'm in then!

MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!
MORE DEBT!!!

You farking mouth breathers. The debt is being reduced at a rate unseen since ww2, and its actively hurting our economy and yet you idiots want more. Except when you don't like more tax cuts, more corporate subsidies, and more military spending.

Not to mention the farking debt ceiling isn't increasing more debt its paying for bills your mouth breathers already rang up.


Whoa don't lump me with those people, I was just being a smart ass. Here's my take on all politics from an earlier post (modified)

Slappy McLongstockings: The only good republicans politicians are dead republicans politicians

 
2013-09-27 12:07:16 PM

zeroman987: My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take.


And the point that I'm making is that your assumption is that if debt ceiling legislation being separate from budgetary legislation is found to be unconstitutional, it will not default to "the President can automatically borrow whatever he needs". It will default to how it was in the early 1900's, where Congress must specifically pass borrowing for their budgeted dollar amounts.

The courts are not able to change explicit Constitutional language. Nor are they allowed to overturn hundreds of years of precedence to answer a political question.

zeroman987: Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.


I never said it was a ban. I said it was a case of Constitutional ambiguity that led the courts to declare that the disagreement was not justicable due to political question doctrine. And yes, as far as the President concerns, what the WPA does is a clear violation of the Constitution - as I said, no sitting President has considered it constitutional. The President is not compelled to follow those laws they deem unconstitutional. The root cause is constitutional, the fight is over legislation. And, in the case of the debt limit, the root cause is constitutional and the fight is over legislation.

You're mixing the two - saying that because an instance of legislation may be considered unconstitutional, it solves the root constitutional ambiguity. That's absolutely not the case.
 
2013-09-27 12:09:21 PM
Ahh yes the "all politicians are bad" centerist moderate idiocy. Look if you think both politicians are equally bad you are dumber than a tea partier at least they have an idealogy. I bet you didn't even vote in 2012 since "it didn't matter anyway".
 
2013-09-27 12:23:52 PM

SenorBenedict: Ahh yes the "all politicians are bad" centerist moderate idiocy. Look if you think both politicians are equally bad you are dumber than a tea partier at least they have an idealogy. I bet you didn't even vote in 2012 since "it didn't matter anyway".


Wow, you're just an angry person aren't you?

btw I'm independant (which I'm sure you hate as well) and I voted. I still hate all politicians. They're all corrupt and greedy. If you can't agree to that you're just a blinded fool. And that 'equally bad' thing is all based on political bias so sell that to someone who'll bite.
 
2013-09-27 12:27:29 PM

FlashHarry: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.

i dunno... i think this is part of his vaunted "long game." i think he's been spoiling for this fight for a while, knowing that the GOP couldn't resist taking the bait. and now he's got the double-whammy of the shutdown AND default, which shows that the GOP is completely willing to burn the US economy to the ground because it didn't get its way.

this sets the dems up for a sweep in '14 and '16 (and beyond, if the GOP doesn't purge the teabaggers from its midst).


I can't entertain the "Obama's Nth failure is a brilliant move in his N+1 dimensional chess game" defense anymore.  At some point you just have to admit that the guy is spineless.
 
2013-09-27 12:29:43 PM
If the Republican position was "We'll give you a debt ceiling increase in exchange for delaying ObamaCare for a year", that would at least be an actual negotiable position.  But what they've done is added the entire Republican platform plus a pair of golden handcuffs to prevents the Executive Branch from doing anything meaningful without the permission of Congress.  There's no way he can possibly accept that.
 
2013-09-27 12:29:57 PM

tfresh: I still hate all politicians. They're all corrupt and greedy.


Hate all you like, we're all entitled to our feelings. But we don't get to make up our own facts.

In my state we have a senator named Kirsten Gillibrand. She's as clean as a whistle and could have made a hell of a lot more money than she does now, so she's neither corrupt nor greedy.
 
2013-09-27 12:32:01 PM

Mentat: If the Republican position was "We'll give you a debt ceiling increase in exchange for delaying ObamaCare for a year", that would at least be an actual negotiable position.  But what they've done is added the entire Republican platform plus a pair of golden handcuffs to prevents the Executive Branch from doing anything meaningful without the permission of Congress.  There's no way he can possibly accept that.


He's not meant to.  The whole thing is theater for the teabaggers back in their home districts.  "We sure stuck it to that darkie, didn't we???"
 
2013-09-27 12:43:02 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: FlashHarry: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Unfortunately, Obama's entire history of dealing with the GOP says he'll buckle.  I'd like him to stand up for me, but I don't think he's capable.

i dunno... i think this is part of his vaunted "long game." i think he's been spoiling for this fight for a while, knowing that the GOP couldn't resist taking the bait. and now he's got the double-whammy of the shutdown AND default, which shows that the GOP is completely willing to burn the US economy to the ground because it didn't get its way.

this sets the dems up for a sweep in '14 and '16 (and beyond, if the GOP doesn't purge the teabaggers from its midst).

I can't entertain the "Obama's Nth failure is a brilliant move in his N+1 dimensional chess game" defense anymore.  At some point you just have to admit that the guy is spineless.


Which failures might you be referring to?
 
2013-09-27 12:45:24 PM

sprawl15: zeroman987: My proposition is that congress has violated the constitution by forcing another branch of government to violate the constitution no matter what action they take.

And the point that I'm making is that your assumption is that if debt ceiling legislation being separate from budgetary legislation is found to be unconstitutional, it will not default to "the President can automatically borrow whatever he needs". It will default to how it was in the early 1900's, where Congress must specifically pass borrowing for their budgeted dollar amounts.

The courts are not able to change explicit Constitutional language. Nor are they allowed to overturn hundreds of years of precedence to answer a political question.

zeroman987: Further, the War Powers Act is different because it is a limit (not a ban btw) on the President's ability to use the military without congressional approval. What the war powers act does not do is compel the President to choose between completely ceding a check on the legislature (sign a bill into law/veto a bill) and violating the constitution.

I never said it was a ban. I said it was a case of Constitutional ambiguity that led the courts to declare that the disagreement was not justicable due to political question doctrine. And yes, as far as the President concerns, what the WPA does is a clear violation of the Constitution - as I said, no sitting President has considered it constitutional. The President is not compelled to follow those laws they deem unconstitutional. The root cause is constitutional, the fight is over legislation. And, in the case of the debt limit, the root cause is constitutional and the fight is over legislation.

You're mixing the two - saying that because an instance of legislation may be considered unconstitutional, it solves the root constitutional ambiguity. That's absolutely not the case.


Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.

A party would challenge the illegal action and at that point, it becomes an actual controversy requiring an interpretation and application of the laws in question because the President has violated the law and has caused actual harm to a third party.

The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power, illegally requires him to not spend the money alloted, unconstitutionally requires the president to usurp the debt power, or unconstitutionally default on the obligations. However, because they presume that congress will pass only constitutional laws, they will interpret the appropriations bill so that it is constitutional. In other words, they will have to interpret the appropriations bill as implicitly authorizing the executive to borrow what ever money is necessary to fund the appropriations they have passed.

This would resolve the contradiction between the two sections (the president can't default but also can't borrow money) by ensuring that by ordering the President to spend the money, he has the money to spend.
 
2013-09-27 12:55:33 PM

qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?


Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.
 
2013-09-27 12:58:22 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


LouDobbsAwaaaay: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles


When will you guys figure out you're having the exact same argument in every thread, and he always drums out the same stupid arguments?
 
2013-09-27 01:19:35 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?

Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.


Alright, so that's one, and the "failure" aspect can certainly be debated. Any others?
 
2013-09-27 01:42:06 PM

zeroman987: Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.


Which would only be a case for an aggrieved party to seek recompense - the courts would have to state what method via the Constitution would allow for the payment of that party. They must be guided by the Constitution, and the Constitution is contradictory. That's why it's a political question - the answer is not 'what does the law say' but 'which of these mutually exclusive statements is the one that defines our governance'. And while I could see a single exception made for extant obligations to 'shore up the books', it would be legally impossible for the courts to declare the President has power to borrow.

The only route that could be simply taken is defaulting it back to the state prior to the 1917 (iirc) liberty bonds bill, forcing Congress to specify the instrument of debt. Before that, Congress would issue specific legislation to authorize borrowing (like the Panama Canal loan, or directing the Treasury to allow issuance of a certain amount of bonds). Keep in mind, the nature of the debt ceiling limitations have two portions - one is that they allow a certain amount of debt to be issued and the other is that they allow certain forms of debt. Congress could say "We want to take this action, and to pay for it we will issue a new set of bonds". The current nature of debt ceiling legislation is "We authorize you to figure out your own ways to pay for it". To default the power to borrow to the President would also default the methodology for borrowing to the President. And that's a serious transition of enumerated powers.

zeroman987: The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power


To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.
 
2013-09-27 01:58:48 PM

sprawl15: To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.


How would the 14th not imply that Congressional appropriations implicitly grant that power?
 
2013-09-27 01:59:58 PM

qorkfiend: LouDobbsAwaaaay: qorkfiend: Which failures might you be referring to?

Previous debt ceiling negotiation and sequester.

Alright, so that's one, and the "failure" aspect can certainly be debated. Any others?


It's two, actually.  But I see that I'm talking to a cheer-leader, so this whole conversation is pointless.
 
2013-09-27 02:05:08 PM

Wooly Bully: Kirsten Gillibrand


Yeah... 1 out of 435 ain't bad.
 
2013-09-27 02:14:46 PM

tfresh: Wooly Bully: Kirsten Gillibrand

Yeah... 1 out of 435 ain't bad.


Not to get pedantic, but saying one isn't corrupt and greedy is not logically equivalent to saying the other 435 are.
 
2013-09-27 02:22:43 PM

grumpfuff: When will you guys figure out you're having the exact same argument in every thread, and he always drums out the same stupid arguments?


It gives me a chance to hone my GIS skills...

www.texasbeyondhistory.net
Thanks BULB!
 
2013-09-27 02:22:59 PM

doyner: How would the 14th not imply that Congressional appropriations implicitly grant that power?


Because the explicit enumeration of the power to borrow is a separate power from the enumerated power to tax/spend and has been considered to be separate, with distinct limitations, since the founding of the nation.
 
2013-09-27 02:49:52 PM

sprawl15: zeroman987: Except you are not taking into account the mechanism by which this would see judicial review. I would say that it would likely only be reviewed when the President takes an unconstitutional action; i.e. he defaults.

Which would only be a case for an aggrieved party to seek recompense - the courts would have to state what method via the Constitution would allow for the payment of that party. They must be guided by the Constitution, and the Constitution is contradictory. That's why it's a political question - the answer is not 'what does the law say' but 'which of these mutually exclusive statements is the one that defines our governance'. And while I could see a single exception made for extant obligations to 'shore up the books', it would be legally impossible for the courts to declare the President has power to borrow.

The only route that could be simply taken is defaulting it back to the state prior to the 1917 (iirc) liberty bonds bill, forcing Congress to specify the instrument of debt. Before that, Congress would issue specific legislation to authorize borrowing (like the Panama Canal loan, or directing the Treasury to allow issuance of a certain amount of bonds). Keep in mind, the nature of the debt ceiling limitations have two portions - one is that they allow a certain amount of debt to be issued and the other is that they allow certain forms of debt. Congress could say "We want to take this action, and to pay for it we will issue a new set of bonds". The current nature of debt ceiling legislation is "We authorize you to figure out your own ways to pay for it". To default the power to borrow to the President would also default the methodology for borrowing to the President. And that's a serious transition of enumerated powers.

zeroman987: The court will review it and state that unless the passing of a budget allows for sufficient borrowing to cover the budget, the budget itself is unconsititutional because it creates a situation that forces the President to either unconstitutionally cede his signing power

To rule this way would state that every single budget passed in the history of this nation was unconstitutional. That every legislative borrowing act was unconstitutional...under a Constitution that specifies the power to borrow to the legislative. That's the problem. To solve the conundrum requires a significant shift in Constitutional interpretation (which is a political act) or a modification to the Constitution (something absolutely not within the powers of the judicial).

tl;dr: I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying the Judicial can't fix it.


I think ultimately you are correct, the judiciary can't fix this problem. I am placing my bets on 20 or so moderate republicans caving, acting as sacrificial lambs. Then again I'm an optimist.
 
2013-09-27 07:03:40 PM

Lyonid: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

I'm fairly conservative and disagree with the current administration on numerous issues...

...and he's now on my ignore list, which is a bit of a rare distinction as I hate using ignore.  Being a troll is one thing.  Being boring, tiresome, and generally worthless is another altogether.

/debt ceiling fight is stupid
//most of the modern GOP also
///GOP primaries are farking depressing

hilariously entertaining!
 
2013-09-27 10:59:07 PM

Evil High Priest: Lyonid: CPennypacker: Stop responding to Aristocles

I'm fairly conservative and disagree with the current administration on numerous issues...

...and he's now on my ignore list, which is a bit of a rare distinction as I hate using ignore.  Being a troll is one thing.  Being boring, tiresome, and generally worthless is another altogether.

/debt ceiling fight is stupid
//most of the modern GOP also
///GOP primaries are farking depressing hilariously entertaining!


... until you remember that *one* of those clowns is likely to actually be elected to a position of power and authority.

(I would add 'responsibility'), but hey, we're talking about 'The Party of Personal Responsibility' (tm)' here. *snort* *chuckle* *guffaw*)
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report