/dev/null Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mitch-mcconnell-debt-ceiling-plan_n_896254.html Sure why not. Congress has already surrendered their Constitutional authority in regards to War. Might as well give up power of the purse too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mitch-mcconnell-debt-ceiling-plan_n_896254.html Sure why not. Congress has already surrendered their Constitutional authority in regards to War. Might as well give up power of the purse too. No surprise, a turd drops a turd of his own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mitch-mcconnell-debt-ceiling-plan_n_896254.html Sure why not. Congress has already surrendered their Constitutional authority in regards to War. Might as well give up power of the purse too. Good job. Way to out-stupid the Tea Partiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/mitch-mcconnell-debt-ceiling-plan_n_896254.html Sure why not. Congress has already surrendered their Constitutional authority in regards to War. Might as well give up power of the purse too. This is not a surrender of constitutional authority like declaring war. The debt limit was simply a law passed by congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The debt ceiling is unconstitutional anyway. The constitution says we can't default on our debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The debt ceiling is unconstitutional anyway. The constitution says we can't default on our debt. No it doesn't. And I know you're going to come back and say "The 14th Amendment does." No, it doesn't. It says that we can't void the debt. Non-payment is not voiding the debt - if the government doesn't pay a T-Bill, it doesn't mean they no longer owe the money. This is not a surrender of constitutional authority like declaring war. The debt limit was simply a law passed by congress Article 2, Section 8. You !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 No it doesn't. And I know you're going to come back and say "The 14th Amendment does." No, it doesn't. It says that we can't void the debt. Non-payment is not voiding the debt - if the government doesn't pay a T-Bill, it doesn't mean they no longer owe the money. Article 2, Section 8. You !@#$ing moron. There is no section eight to article 2. Want to try again stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 There is no section eight to article 2. Want to try again stupid? Article 1, Section 8, you !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) No it doesn't. And I know you're going to come back and say "The 14th Amendment does." No, it doesn't. It says that we can't void the debt. Non-payment is not voiding the debt - if the government doesn't pay a T-Bill, it doesn't mean they no longer owe the money. Article 2, Section 8. You !@#$ing moron. Have you even read the amendment? It goes a whole lot further than that. In 1935 the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment also forbade us from altering the terms of already established debt. Defaulting on the debt alters the terms of that debt, since the terms include timely repayment. You aren't going to find a Judge who will agree with you. Edited July 13, 2011 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Punting on 3rd down: That's leadership Mitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Actually I am not totally on board with this... moving into the 2012 election year, if the Obama Administration doesn't do the right thing which is raise the debt ceiling coupled with spending cuts (defense), reform of entitlement programs, rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts and closing corporate tax loop holes he will get hammered. He NEEDS to do ALL of those items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Punting on 3rd down: That's leadership Mitch. He is defending this, saying "I am not going to do anyhting to help Obama get re-elected"....and goes on say he doesn't want Republicans to be "co-owners of this economy" What an absolute piece of **** this guy is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 He is defending this, saying "I am not going to do anyhting to help Obama get re-elected"....and goes on say he doesn't want Republicans to be "co-owners of this economy" What an absolute piece of **** this guy is... Why? Because he wants the Dems to take full responsibility for their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Punting on 3rd down: That's leadership Mitch. Actually, and I could be wrong, but, I think that's exactly the reaction he is attempting to extract. Everybody who isn't an idiot, or affected by wishful thinking, knows that the Republicans have already won on this. Consider: At the outset the Leftist position was: no entitlement discussions, no benefit cuts, raise new taxes on the rich Obama's position was: separate the debt ceiling vote from everything else, get it done quick and quiet, threaten Republicans and their supporters with moral hazard and whatever else, and not concede anything. Yeah. What's the scoreboard say? We are already looking at 2.something trillion in cuts, everything being on the table, Pelosi being pushed aside and ignored, no new taxes, Obama "wanting", now, a big bill that is completely integrated, not separated....and all the left gets is a few tax break loopholes for corporate jets closed that don't amount to jackshit? Why on earth should the Republicans stop now? They have most of the Democrats running, might as well finish the job and ride them down. McConnell is saying: F U, it's time for you to lose big Democrats. So, he plays the whine card. He whines, and the entire right stream media kicks into gear and tries to help him out. IF Mitch sees that that all he needs is a few more horses to flank the entire Democrat political position and get them all running, why wouldn't he push to get them? So what if some of the attacks end up on him? He's not going anywhere. Also this has the benefit of being a very good feint at weakness to conceal strength. Now the story is that the Republicans aren't winning, even though they are, and rather than allow the MSM to talk about the terrible things they are going to do , they force them to talk about this instead. Edited July 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Actually, and I could be wrong, but, I think that's exactly the reaction he is attempting to extract. Everybody who isn't an idiot, or affected by wishful thinking, knows that the Republicans have already won on this. Consider: At the outset the Leftist position was: no entitlement discussions, no benefit cuts, raise new taxes on the rich Obama's position was: separate the debt ceiling vote from everything else, get it done quick and quiet, threaten Republicans and their supporters with moral hazard and whatever else, and not concede anything. Yeah. What's the scoreboard say? We are already looking at 2.something trillion in cuts, everything being on the table, Pelosi being pushed aside and ignored, no new taxes, Obama "wanting", now, a big bill that is completely integrated, not separated....and all the left gets is a few tax break loopholes for corporate jets closed that don't amount to jackshit? Why on earth should the Republicans stop now? They have most of the Democrats running, might as well finish the job and ride them down. McConnell is saying: F U, it's time for you to lose big Democrats. So, he plays the whine card. He whines, and the entire right stream media kicks into gear and tries to help him out. IF Mitch sees that that all he needs is a few more horses to flank the entire Democrat political position and get them all running, why wouldn't he push to get them? So what if some of the attacks end up on him? He's not going anywhere. Also this has the benefit of being a very good feint at weakness to conceal strength. Now the story is that the Republicans aren't winning, even though they are, and rather than allow the MSM to talk about the terrible things they are going to do , they force them to talk about this instead. I think that the leadership of the GOP just bailed out on the tea party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Why? Because he wants the Dems to take full responsibility for their actions? He is forgetting that a very significant part of this problem started under the previous administration...I know Republicans (or however you are id'ing your political affiliation) don't want to hear it, but facts are facts. It all goes back to the whole "two Americas" concept...that used to be seen as a bad thing, but Republicans seem to be embracing the notion now... McConnel is a piece of ****, IMO, because he is clearly putting the needs of his party politics over doing part of his job...I realize, this is some sort of Machiavelian move by the McConnell, but I think it is illustrates that the Republican party is willing to resort to anything, at this point, to win a presidential election. If Obama is so awful (and I know most here will wholeheartedly agree on that) why not work for the betterment of the situation for everyone, instead of playing games like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) I think that the leadership of the GOP just bailed out on the tea party Ah, let me correct you: YOU HOPE, not "I think". And, your hope is delusional at worst, and, as I said above, wishful thinking, at best. All this time and you guys still don't get it? What is bad for the goose(Democrats) is not bad for the gander(Republicans) here. Yes, when circumstances pit Big Labor against Big Lawyers and/or Big ALGORE, Inc. it causes serious problems for Democrats. It is only when a Democrat who can browbeat all of the malcontents of this country in unison is in charge, that you have success. The TEA party works in the exact opposite way: 1. Unlike the "Bigs" in the Democratic party, the TEA party is not dependent on the Republicans for its livelihood. It has no self interest. It is not a "special interest" group. 2. Despite all failed attempts to spin it otherwise, the TEA party is now accurately perceived by the all important independent voters to be: just a bunch of average Americans who want limited government. 3. The TEA party has no leaders to be paid off, no JV TEA partiers who want to be Varsity some day, no structure to penetrate. It is therefore incorruptible, and therefore, inviolate. So, when the TEA party says they don't like something, it's the people voicing "what's good for the country" Republicans are listening to. The more revved up the TEA party is, the more of a weapon they are in negotiations. Conversely the more Big Labor is revved up and voicing "what's good for me", the more they become a weapon for the other side, and therefore, cancel themselves out.. Finally, the dissent of the TEA party can be used as both sword and shield for Republicans. Sword as in: "Do you see those people in the street? I have been elected by a constituency that demands immediate action, and that's why I am voting yes" Shield as in: "Hey guys I'd love to help you out and vote for it, but you know what the TEA party will do to me". In contrast, 0 Democratic special interest groups can be used as either by Democrats. You won't find a Democrat saying "Do you see those union thugs in the street? That's why I am voting yes!" Edited July 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 McConnel is a piece of ****, IMO, because he is clearly putting the needs of his party politics over doing part of his job. I'm with you. There's nothing worse than putting the needs of your party over doing part of your job. Next thing you know, he'll go on national TV and scare the schittt out of every elderly person in the country by letting them know they're probably not going to get their social security check next month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) I'm with you. There's nothing worse than putting the needs of your party over doing part of your job. Next thing you know, he'll go on national TV and scare the schittt out of every elderly person in the country by letting them know they're probably not going to get their social security check next month. You certainly have to wonder about Republican leadership...and don't give me the Obama "scare tactics" argument...what have the Republicans been saying for the last few months? The Republicans were using the same tactics up until this week...now they are just wanting to drop the argument, so they can use it later... http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0711/Graham_GOP_has_no_one_to_blame_but_ourselves_.html Lindsey Graham (R- SC) “Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months. How many Republicans have been on TV saying, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit.’ You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, ‘I’m not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.’ And I’ve said I’m not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.’ So we’ve got nobody to blame but ourselves,” Graham told reporters after a GOP caucus lunch. “We shouldn’t have said that if we didn’t mean it.” Edited July 14, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 You certainly have to wonder about Republican leadership...and don't give me the Obama "scare tactics" argument...what have the Republicans been saying for the last few months? The Republicans were using the same tactics up until this week. Yeah but it's only wrong when the other guys do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts