stlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:Whether or not he has this power is a moot point right now. If I were in his shoes I would invoke it and immediately raise the debt ceiling..

believer;846533 wrote:Footie,

Sometimes I get confused which side of the political fence you're on. I actually agree with much of what you've said! lol

Footwedge;846626 wrote:I'm surprise that you're surprised...regarding my post. I'm the biggest fiscal hawk around here. One of the reasons I left the GOP is because they ended up spending more than the Democrats did over my lifetime.

gut;846656 wrote:The biggest hole here is lack of a consumption tax, and that's the only way I see to sustain revenues above 18% of GDP. There might be a few classes of VAT and some exclusions, but an average of 10% could add $1.5T in revenues. And this would mostly be borne by the consumer, and it's effect is mostly inflationary...and the consumer would scream bloody murder. But if we want all these social programs that's the only way I can see to pay for them.

believer;846662 wrote:It may be what's necessary to sustain entitlements but to think the effect would be mostly inflationary is a bit short-sighted.

We already have an economy that is exporting good paying jobs overseas at an alarming rate. Adding any type of VAT on the consumer will decrease consumption thereby further slowing down an already anemic economy and most likely hasten the inevitable demise of even more companies on the bubble.

The United States still boasts the world's most robust economy, but we didn't get there by emulating the clearly faltering European economic model.

What we need immediately is FAR LESS SPENDING and a balance budget agreement. Let's stop the bleeding first and then talk about taxes.

stlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:Whether or not he has this power is a moot point right now. If I were in his shoes I would invoke it and immediately raise the debt ceiling. If it wound up in the courts, so be it. At least he would have acted on this "crisis" instead of blowing up the economy for political leverage, which is all the Republicans are doing.

stlouiedipalma;846463 wrote:I really believe now more than ever that they are willing to put our country at risk for the opportunity to regain the White House, and your comment about supporting impeachment is further testimony of what you really want, and at what price you are willing to pay in order to achieve your goals.

majorspark;846877 wrote:I would not worry too much though louie, any negative reaction in the market will cause the republicans to fold like a cheap lawn chair. Just like they did for TARP.

majorspark;846188 wrote:Time to send the senate a bill prioritizing spending underneath the debt ceiling after August 2nd.

stlouiedipalma;846319 wrote:Actually it's time for Obama to tell all the idiots "**** you, I'm invoking the 14th, deal with it".

majorspark;846376 wrote:My suggestion is constituional. Yours is not. Don't get hoodwinked into this folly. It would add a constutional crises on top of the debt crisis. It would pour gasoline on the fire.

If you are left with any doubt as to who has the power to enforce this amendment. Section 5 makes it quite clear. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Not the executive, not the judicial, the Congress. Only Congress can enforce it. Any branch of the federal government that usurps congressional authority in this matter is in direct violation of the constitution.

Obama swore an oath to uphold the constitution. There are reasonable differences in the interpretation of the constitution. You can't argue away Congress's authority under section 5. If Obama wants to take that authority from congress he should be impeached. And I would support it.

Footwedge;846519 wrote:Let the stalemate run it's course...and let's see what happens. As for the economy totally collapsing, I doubt it. Some people wpn't get paid....so what. Welcome to the real world. Some Fed Reserve banks won't get paid. So what. Welcome to the real world. Maybe Brown, Kellogg and Root won't get paid. So what. Maybe General Dynamics won't get paid. I could not care less.

Government workers will be laid off. Well, welcome to the real world, federal workers. Your group is the most highly coddled, collectively overpaid, stress free livers on the planet. Lose a few nights of sleep like the rest of main stream America does.

It has been proven that you fed woekers have a better chance of dying, then being fired. And that is a pile of crap.

Again...KEEP THE PRESENT CEILING. I'm in your corner, Mr. Boehner, on this one. Forced fiscal responsibility is exactly what is needed. The government will be forced to prioritize....and maybe, just maybe, it will end up showing that living on a tighter budget is not only doable, but doable without the perceived imminent collapse.

Americans did not suddenly fall in love with Republicans. They remain wary of the GOP, and — as we’re seeing — for good reason. The electoral revolt was strictly a center-right nation’s revulsion against governance by the hard Left. Republicans reaped the benefits because they were the only alternative, not because the public is convinced that they’ve learned anything from their stint in the wilderness.

The main lesson that should have been learned but hasn’t been is this: While every issue has political overtones and consequences, that does not make every issue political in its essence. The debt-ceiling controversy is not, as Republican leadership and its cheerleaders maintain, about politics. It is not a matter of, “If we don’t handle this correctly, if we push this too far, if Americans think we’re too extreme, President Obama will be reelected.” The debt ceiling is about the debt, not about how politicians can optimally position themselves to evade accountability for the inevitable consequences of the debt.

The saddest thing about Thomas Sowell’s take on all this is not his suggestion that the political fallout of the debt controversy trumps the substance of the debt problem. It is his intimation that the truth can’t win. I doubt he would have much disagreement with the numbers I’ve laid out, or what they portend. What he seems to be saying, though, is that conservatives are either so incapable of making this case, or so overmatched by the left-wing media, that being right no longer matters. He seems to be saying that this argument cannot be won, even with the facts on our side.

Perhaps more dismaying than Dr. Sowell’s conclusion that conservatives can’t win is Dr. Krauthammer’s contention that they should stop trying. The tiresome claim that you can’t govern from one-half of one-third of the government is half-baked, and the suggestion that there is something constitutionally untoward in the opposition of House Republicans is ridiculous.

The House Republican faction opposed to granting a gargantuan increase in the debt ceiling is not governing. Governing is what the government as a whole does after accommodating all the factions in a system of divided powers. As Mark Levin points out, when Senate Democrats blocked Bush judicial nominees, they were in control of no part of the government. The rules gave the minority rights, and they made maximum use of them. There was political risk in being portrayed as obstructionist, creating a vacancy crisis on the bench, and depriving the country of well-qualified nominees. But Senate leftists calculated that, from their standpoint, the substance of the problem — having the bench increasingly dominated by conservative jurists who would stall the advance of their statist agenda — outweighed whatever political risk there was in hanging tough. It was important enough to them, so they fought to the bitter end. For the most part, they won — the vacancies they preserved are being filled by President Obama, creating life-tenured left-wing jurists who, for decades, will frustrate conservative efforts to roll back Obama’s advances.

There are two big differences between then and now. First, the Republicans actually control the House. Second, the debt problem they confront is not just by dimensions more significant than the ideology of judicial nominees; it is precisely the matter they were elected to address.

No, Republicans can’t govern from the House — if President Obama decided to pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, there’s not much House Republicans could do about it except cavil. But just as the Constitution makes the president supreme in foreign affairs, it makes the Congress preeminent when it comes to federal borrowing and spending — and, in fact, reposes in the House of Representatives primary control over the raising of revenue. The Framers quite consciously structured things that way so that the spending of public dollars and incurring of public debt would be most closely overseen by the political officials most directly accountable to the people — the members of the House, who have to face the voters every two years.

The people, quite emphatically, want out-of-control spending dealt with. Their representatives have the power to effectuate that desire. The president can try to insist on borrowing and spending more, but the House gets to say no — and, on this matter, it is the president who should yield. That is not a constitutional problem; it is the Constitution in action.

The Republican establishment and the commentariat that claims it is time for conservatives to yield should stop posturing that their stance is about anything other than politics. They are worried that the media will blame Republicans if the debt limit is not raised, if spending is suddenly slashed, and if various constituencies in the dependency state are cut off cold-turkey from their federal goodies. They fear that President Obama — a class-A demagogue — will ride the ensuing chaos to reelection

sleeper;848293 wrote:Pretty disappointed in congress and Obama. The whole thing saved the country short term, and made things exponentially worse for the long term outlook of this country.

BGFalcons82;848578 wrote:I am now convinced more than ever that we will spend ourselves into oblivion. The TEA Party is being portrayed as hobbits, extremeists, and now terrorists by the Vice President of the United States. With such disdain and outright hatred for people asking them to control spending, we are doomed. The "deal" as reported reduces no spending. In fact, we'll be running trillion dollar deficits for as long as anyone can see. I predict by 2016, we'll be spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service our gluttony and greed.

It is done.

BGFalcons82;848578 wrote:I am now convinced more than ever that we will spend ourselves into oblivion. The TEA Party is being portrayed as hobbits, extremeists, and now terrorists by the Vice President of the United States. With such disdain and outright hatred for people asking them to control spending, we are doomed. The "deal" as reported reduces no spending. In fact, we'll be running trillion dollar deficits for as long as anyone can see. I predict by 2016, we'll be spending at least $1,000,000,000,000 per year just to service our gluttony and greed.

It is done.

ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit?.

majorspark;848695 wrote:This is what they told us would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised by 11:59pm August 2nd.

ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote: the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.

ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Ok chicken little.
Is spending still high, yes. Is it the end of the world, no. Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit? Doubt it.
Most likely what is going to happen is just stagnation, the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.

ptown_trojans_1;848675 wrote:Ok chicken little.
Is spending still high, yes. Is it the end of the world, no. Will the sky fall, doomsday approach, Jesus return, the heavens open up and massive economic calamity hit? Doubt it.
Most likely what is going to happen is just stagnation, the economic will stay flat, growing between 1-3% per year.

tk421;848816 wrote:You really do have your head buried in the sand. It must be all that time spent in D.C. How can you say there won't be any consequences of our incessant spending? We will have 20 Trillion in debt before 2020, there is no way our GDP will grow enough to keep pace. Sooner or later, most likely sooner than all the idiots in D.C. would like, our credit card will be taken away from us and the U.S. will be forced to spend within their means. To think that we can just happily keep borrowing and running trillion plus deficits for as long as we want with only a weak economy to show for it is foolish.

ptown_trojans_1;848839 wrote:I'm for cuts, deep ones as well, just strategic ones that take time.
Saying the world will end and making worse case assumptions is not helping.
Sorry, I just don't but into the whole we are screwed point of view.
I'm not one to overreact or go worst case and neither should most people.

With the right cuts, a steady economy that slowly grows and reforming various areas, we will be fine.

tk421;848858 wrote:What in god's name makes you think that there will EVER be any cuts to the budget? Real actual cuts, where the budget reduces the next year. It's not going to happen, the idiots in D.C. don't have the courage to do it. We ARE doomed, because we vote for these complete morons who do anything in their power to gain more power for their party, they don't give a crap about the citizens.

I don't know what you have seen to make you such an idealist, nothing makes me think the budget will ever be cut until the credit card is stopped, until they can not borrow anymore they will continue to do so. This "commission" that they are supposed to form to study more cuts won't do a damn thing, just like any other commission that the government forms. They might suggest some cuts, but they will be basic and not amount to anything if the suggestions are even followed.