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.

(Think Progress)   Remember when George Washington defeated the British by crashing the world economy?   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 213
    More: Unlikely, world economy, House GOP  
•       •       •

3639 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2013 at 7:02 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-13 07:35:19 PM
Just when I thought the hyperbole couldn't get any worse.
 
2013-10-13 07:35:50 PM

Peki: What do you call 12 lawyers chained together at the bottom of ocean?


A good start?
 
2013-10-13 07:36:19 PM
makeameme.org
 
2013-10-13 07:36:53 PM

LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.


i could see that happening (not that it would make me happy)

and who would really shocked by it
 
2013-10-13 07:38:02 PM

LasersHurt: nubzers: LasersHurt: nubzers: Doing this would render the legislative branch almost useless since any president could just directly finance the government at whatever level he wants.

In what possible way could you think this is the case? I mean, can you justify this with anything at all? Ending a shutdown would empower them to spend whatever they want?

My thinking is that if he goes around congress and invokes the 14th, at what level of funding would he continue the government at? Sequester level or pre-sequester? There isn't a budget in place, and not a lot of guidance for this situation. And I'm thinking farther down the line with future presidents. When they wrote that amendment, they surely didn't intend it to be used in a situation like this. So if Obama did use it, even with the best of intentions, it could set a bad precedent for situations we can't foresee.

I'm just wary of short term solutions with long term implications.

I am more assuming he'd do it to avoid a Debt Ceiling/Default issue, not so much for the budget level - that I'd guess would be continued at current levels. I still imagine he'll hold out for congressional negotiations to get a permanent budget.


I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.
 
2013-10-13 07:39:36 PM

worlddan: Albino Squid: A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground

Some are but none of those actually work for the Administration, see, and not one of them has to make the decision, see, and those who do work for the Administration, see, and are tasked with the responsibility for making the decision, see,  think those who talking about the 14A are selling horseshiat to increase page views.


I know look at this horse shiat peddling click whores:

http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Buchanan -D orf.pdf
 
2013-10-13 07:41:59 PM

Weaver95: MrBallou: So he's saying he wants destroy the economy of the USA to break our will, so he can declare independence?

well...actually, the tea derpers seem to believe that if they break the will of the average worker/voter in this country, then they can carefully rebuild society in their image.  which is of course stronger, pure and powerful.  the fact that they want to achieve this utopia over the dead bodies of the rest of us is simply a price they're willing to pay.  we're supposed to lay down and die to achieve this paradise on earth.


www.stilleasierthanchemo.com
 
2013-10-13 07:48:15 PM
sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.
 
2013-10-13 07:48:36 PM

sinanju: Benevolent Misanthrope: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

What, precisely? That's not a challenge, I honestly don't know what the Constitutin would allow.

A trillion dollar coin minted with Boehner's face on it.


The tears on his cheeks, please say there would be tears.
 
2013-10-13 07:48:45 PM

Gergesa: LasersHurt: On the final day before the Debt Ceiling is met and shiat is scheduled to go haywire, I hope the President holds a prime-time interruption and announces an Executive Action of some sort to end this charade. Go over Congress' heads.

Anyone know the legalities of this?


Maybe he could "make it legal", and then declare the First American Empire....

/ oddly enough, I's support something like that over Teabagger-induced economic collapse.
// If I get to participate in any treason-trials as a juror, I'd be down with that....
 
2013-10-13 07:54:18 PM
I'd like to respectfully remind this douchnozzle that America isn't the only country thats had a revolution.

media.npr.org
 
2013-10-13 07:55:43 PM
No, but he did shut down a cherry tree. But since he took personal responsibility for that, I guess he wasn't a Republican.
 
2013-10-13 07:57:16 PM

Weaver95: sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.


Unlikely. That would require them to read something other than select chunks of the King James Bible, Breitbart/whatever freeper site they prefer, and all those obviously-fake-and-have-been-fake-since-they-were-first-used-with-diff erent-names-in-the-90s emails they insist on forwarding to each other.
 
2013-10-13 07:58:00 PM

whistleridge: Weaver95: sometimes I think the evangelicals read 'it can't happen here' by sinclair lewis and figured it was an awesome idea to turn the country into a corrupt war mongering theocracy.

Unlikely. That would require them to read something other than select chunks of the King James Bible, Breitbart/whatever freeper site they prefer, and all those obviously-fake-and-have-been-fake-since-they-were-first-used-with-diff erent-names-in-the-90s emails they insist on forwarding to each other.


well...in that case then Sinclair Lewis was a gotdamn fricking prophet.
 
2013-10-13 07:59:54 PM
Why the hell does the ThinkProgress site tag have the same colors as WND?  ThinkProgress has no yellow in their logo
 
2013-10-13 08:02:59 PM
AH, Griffith of VA-9th District.
That's southwest Virginia, the mouth-breather part.

Yes, we'll probably need to be arresting a passel of these people eventually for anti-government activities. Just give them some time. They'll hang themselves with their "freedoms."
 
2013-10-13 08:04:40 PM
If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.
 
2013-10-13 08:07:20 PM
nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.
 
2013-10-13 08:07:55 PM

Albino Squid: No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.


My take on this is, who would have standing to sue?

SCOTUS, like any other US Court, can only take a case if they are able to provide a remedy - i.e, if they have the authority to grant the remedy requested by the person doing the suing. That person must also demonstrate that they have been injured or harmed by an act taken by another.

So who would file a theoretical lawsuit to have SCOTUS answer the question of whether the President had the authority to take steps necessary to uphold the 14th Amendment when Congress had failed to do so? Maybe someone who had shorted the American dollar?
 
2013-10-13 08:08:22 PM

Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.


Well, all-right then....?
 
2013-10-13 08:08:25 PM
"To become a thing is to know a thing. To assume its form is to begin to understand its existence."

--Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-10-13 08:09:59 PM
If Griffith, Meadows or any other House member actually carry through with their threats to destroy the US economy, they should be charged with sedition and brought up on charges. Sedition, not treason, is the crime being committed here, and every House Teabagger needs to be told that's what they're about to do.
 
2013-10-13 08:11:14 PM

TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.


The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.
 
2013-10-13 08:12:20 PM

Bendal: If Griffith, Meadows or any other House member actually carry through with their threats to destroy the US economy, they should be charged with sedition and brought up on charges. Sedition, not treason, is the crime being committed here, and every House Teabagger needs to be told that's what they're about to do.


"His values are strongly shaped by his expertise as a Constitutional law professor and civil rights attorney, and by Christianity."
 
2013-10-13 08:12:48 PM

Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.


We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.
 
2013-10-13 08:12:53 PM
Have we gotten to the point where we can call Tea Party types "dead enders"? Because they are long overdue for becoming irrelevant.
 
2013-10-13 08:13:42 PM
"Ironic, isn't it? The hunted now control the destinies of hundreds of other races."

--Ben Franklin
 
2013-10-13 08:14:17 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Noam Chimpsky: If there is a such thing as a 'world economy', it needs to be eradicated. Such a thing could only be a feature of global communism.

We probably need to step right the fark away from the NAFTA and other globalist prosperity traps on the other side of this disaster. But the globalists won't have it.


Globalism is inevitable; better to figure out how to make it work properly for everyone than pretend we can avoid it.
 
2013-10-13 08:15:17 PM

ox45tallboy: TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.

The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.


And the really weird part is that the Republicans claim to worship Jesus Christ, a god who commanded his followers to heal the sick and help the poor.  so a group that claims to make this religion a huge part of their political goals is willing to shut down the entire US government and severely damage the world economy to avoid having to help the sick and the poor.  just roll that idea around in your head for a moment, see where it takes you.
 
2013-10-13 08:15:43 PM
I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.
 
2013-10-13 08:18:15 PM

nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.


Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:02 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Why the hell does the ThinkProgress site tag have the same colors as WND?  ThinkProgress has no yellow in their logo


It does on their Economy tab, which is where the article is from. Every tab on ThinkProgress has 'Think' in a different color.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:10 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job.


I guess they figured things like citizenship requirements and the Oath of Office would be enough.
 
2013-10-13 08:20:24 PM

ox45tallboy: Albino Squid: No one seems to know. A lot of Constitutional scholars seem to believe that he could invoke the 14th Amendment on fairly firm ground, but whether the Supremes would agree is anyone's guess.

My take on this is, who would have standing to sue?

SCOTUS, like any other US Court, can only take a case if they are able to provide a remedy - i.e, if they have the authority to grant the remedy requested by the person doing the suing. That person must also demonstrate that they have been injured or harmed by an act taken by another.

So who would file a theoretical lawsuit to have SCOTUS answer the question of whether the President had the authority to take steps necessary to uphold the 14th Amendment when Congress had failed to do so? Maybe someone who had shorted the American dollar?


Not a clue, but it's still scary stuff...ifsomeone was determined to have standing, and  ifthe Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts ruled against Obama, shiat gets bad in a hurry. And while I'd like to believe that they wouldn't go that route, the bond markets would undoubtedly be scared while it hung in the balance, and I've kinda lost faith in the notion that members of the USSC have much understanding of how their rulings impact the real world.
 
2013-10-13 08:22:26 PM

ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.


^ THIS.
 
2013-10-13 08:24:25 PM

Weaver95: And the really weird part is that the Republicans claim to worship Jesus Christ, a god who commanded his followers to heal the sick and help the poor.  so a group that claims to make this religion a huge part of their political goals is willing to shut down the entire US government and severely damage the world economy to avoid having to help the sick and the poor.  just roll that idea around in your head for a moment, see where it takes you.


Didn't Jesus also tell his followers to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" at a time in which the Roman government distributed food aid to the poor?

Modern Christianity is a sad shell of the teachings of Jesus.
 
2013-10-13 08:24:38 PM

JAYoung: I remember the Revolution as being caused by Parliament enacting laws to benefit the British East India Company that we Colonials objected to -- you know, taxing the People to benefit the Corporation.


The Tea Act actually made the East India Company's tea cost less, even with the tax. The objections to the taxes without representation were real, but that fire was stoked by monied interests in the tea smuggling trade and other colonial profiteering businesses. So I guess things don't ever really change.
 
2013-10-13 08:25:43 PM
You hippie liebral scum are ruining America and all of my freedoms! A pox on your house!
 
2013-10-13 08:25:44 PM

ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.


I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:43 PM

ox45tallboy: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job.

I guess they figured things like citizenship requirements and the Oath of Office would be enough.


And technically speaking, the Teatards are following the Constitution. Because there is no explicit order that says they CAN'T act like slobbering morons with issues of global importance.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:49 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.


Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.
 
2013-10-13 08:28:52 PM

Albino Squid: Not a clue, but it's still scary stuff...ifsomeone was determined to have standing, and  ifthe Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts ruled against Obama, shiat gets bad in a hurry. And while I'd like to believe that they wouldn't go that route, the bond markets would undoubtedly be scared while it hung in the balance, and I've kinda lost faith in the notion that members of the USSC have much understanding of how their rulings impact the real world.


I agree that the very idea they would consider hearing the case, as if there existed in some theoretical fashion some circumstance in which the President might have overstepped his authority and that SCOTUS would have the authority to force the country into default if the President could not prove his case, would be scary as all hell.

It's not that they would likely rule in favor of the President's actions, it's that merely by hearing it, they would have to believe they could provide the remedy of reversing his actions and sending the country into default.
 
2013-10-13 08:29:01 PM
So, if the 11th hour arrives ( and it sure as Hell seems like it will ) we can either:

-Give in to the extremists of the GOP, and set a horrible precedent.

-Get creative with a 14th amendment/other workaround, perhaps creating a different horrible precedent.

-Default...oh boy.

Personally, if 11th hour arrives I vote we purge the TP'ers from the face of the Earth: all TP representatives, staff, supporters, families, utilize every picture and database of protests, etc. I want a TP remembrance pool in Washington filled with their blood.

But I'm also bitter and spiteful, and best left far away from positions of authority.
 
2013-10-13 08:32:19 PM
"Use the Force." - John Penn
 
2013-10-13 08:34:00 PM

nubzers: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.


I mean, if they REALLY want to yield part of the power of the purse, I suppose that is their prerogative. Much like pushing for a direct population vote for Presidential elections would shift the power to the northeastern United States. If we as a country want to let that part of the nation to be the dominant electoral authority, then I guess I hope that they'll do a good job.
 
2013-10-13 08:34:35 PM

ox45tallboy: TV's Vinnie: All this drama-queenery by republicans simply because the right wing just cannot STAND the thought of poor people NOT writhing in pain or dying. The level of sadism they have for the disadvantaged is staggering.

The question (in their minds) is actually far bigger than that - they see Obamacare as an expansion of the Federal Government, when they are working their asses off to shrink it down small enough to drown in a bathtub. It's not that they don't want to help sick people, it's that they see people dying as a necessary evil to enact their vision of government.

Obamacare is a diametrically opposite move to the direction they wish to take the country.


In other words, the right wing ultimately wants this:

images.wikia.com
 
2013-10-13 08:36:20 PM

nubzers: ox45tallboy: nubzers: I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

Then I'm not sure if you understand how the debt ceiling works.

If the debt ceiling were raised by, say, $5 billion tomorrow, that does not mean that the country is suddenly $5 billion more in debt., Treasury notes such as bonds are issued only to pay for expenses as they occur - and only expenses which have been authorized by Congress.

In other words, Congress authorized all of the spending. The creditors are going to run our credit card next week, and if we haven't raised our credit limit, they'll get a decline. Just because we raise our credit limit does not mean that we're that much in debt, just that we can become that much more in debt by continuing to authorize spending.

Congress needs to lift the credit limit now, since THIS CONGRESS authorized all of this spending. Then they can work towards a budget which does not increase our debt.

I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.


The things that require funding. Not all functions of government are dictated by the "budget". Other functions are funded seperately such as the military, Social Security, Medicare, pork spending (like funding for a bridge attached to a commodities trading law) and "Obamacare".

If Obama invokes the 14th, the treasury will issue bonds only to cover current obligations as the Executive can only spend money as dictated by laws passed by congress. Invoking the 14th does not do an end run around congress to spend money willy nilly. It only ignores the constitutionally dubious "debt ceiling" to pay for things Congress has made laws saying they have to be paid.
 
2013-10-13 08:36:59 PM

nubzers: I knew about the debt ceiling being just the max we could borrow, not what we have borrowed. But I was unsure about what exactly will get paid for and at either sequester or pre-sequester levels due to the lack of an actual budget.


Currently, the government is working off of "continuing resolution" bills, which are basically agreements to keep existing levels of funding with only minor changes, without going through the whole budget process. The House passed a "Continuing Resolution", authorizing funding at the sequester levels (meaning the reduced rates of funding of many government services which occurred over the summer), as well as defunding Obamacare. The Senate passed a "clean CR bill", which was EXACTLY the same CR bill as the House passed, but with the "defund Obamacare" stipulation stripped out. The Speaker of the House refuses to allow the "clean CR" bill to be brought up for a vote, because it will likely pass. So the government has shut down because there is no authorization for additional spending.

There's more to it than this, such as the fact that the CR only funds "discretionary" spending, as opposed to "mandatory" spending, the difference between the two being whatever Congress says it is. But in a nutshell, anyone who says this is a budgetary matter regarding spending has no idea what they are talking about.
 
2013-10-13 08:38:16 PM
This notion seems to be fairly popular on Facebook.
 
2013-10-13 08:38:49 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: nubzers:

I'm assuming the same, but the next question after "ok, I'm raising the debt ceiling to pay for the government" is "how much to borrow". And that's what I'm worried about.

He could very well say that the Debt Ceiling is not binding on the Executive branch and continue to pay legally required obligations (like Social Security and Medicare and interest on the debt) as they come along and punt the option of government funding to Congress.

The social programs with their own funding requirements and sources would have to continue to pay out, even though some have negative cash flow. I would be perfectly cool with the President telling Congress to fark themselves if they think the United States will default on obligated payments, but they should really pass a budget and re-open the government. He would face impeachment proceedings (which I would normally support in that situation), but it would fail. After the Senate fails to convict, President Obama is politically bulletproof. Let the craven morons in the House have hourly impeachment proceedings and rack up the high score. Hell, the President could give them a ceremonial middle finger - send the dog as the official White House counsel and let them yell at it.

The crux of the Constitutional issue is that none of amendment writers actually envisioned a scenario where Congress would blatantly refuse to do its job. It is an ugly precedent, but so was suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Yeah it is a very ugly situation and it's the sole fault of the tea party for causing this and forcing this choice between either a increase in executive power that could be abused, or crashing the world's economy.

I mean, if they REALLY want to yield part of the power of the purse, I suppose that is their prerogative. Much like pushing for a direct population vote for Presidential elections would shift the power to the northeastern United States. If we as a country want to let that part of the nation to be the dominant electoral authority, then I guess I hope that they'll do a good job.


I suppose, but making that kind of decision to basically rewrite the constitution in a fabricated crisis is dangerous. Especially considering its only a small minority forcing this issue.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report