It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ghost375
What the hell is wrong with you guys?
It's Congress that is supposed to pass budgets, not the President!
You should be mad at Congress for failing to do their job!
Not Obama for stepping in because Congress isn't doing theirs!
The hate for this one man is blinding you from reality.
For the second consecutive year, the Democrat-controlled United States Senate has unanimously rejected President Obama's 2013 budget. The final vote was 99-0, making the the running two-year tally 196-0. This move follows the House of Representatives' 414-0 rebuke of the same fiscal blueprint earlier this year. Astonishingly, not a single Senate Democrat has voted in favor of any budget for three years, even as they refuse to offer a plan of their own. Democrats have claimed that three fig leaves mitigate this embarrassing spectacle:
(1) "The Senate has already passed a budget!" False. The Senate has not passed a budget. It "deemed" itself a budget as part of a separate piece of legislation over the summer. That law did not address tax policy, entitlement programs, and a slew of other items that a real budget entails. Harry Reid's hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans' contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations. This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case.
(2) "Republican obstructionism!" False. Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered. If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass. Simple as that. Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop it. But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they've been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons.
(3) "This vote is a gimmick!" If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president's budget a "gimmick," they're welcome to do so. In some ways, it's an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama's budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent "savings" it claims. Had it not been defeated by Congress 513-0, Obama's budget would have added $11 Trillion to the gross national debt. It would literally never balance.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
1. Debt cannot reasonably go on indefinitely.
Are you worried that Congress might pass a law that they don't allocate money for? Why would they do that? Congress, has in the past, "defunded" a program, which is telling the President "don't do that anymore." A program which requires money that doesn't have money, just doesn't get started.
Meanwhile, the only money the administration gets is through taxes prescribed by congress. if the debt ceiling prevents the administration from borrowing money to make up the difference, the president is going to have to make a decision on which laws he wants to ignore...
It's not the debt ceiling that is being used by the Republicans, it's the fact that they have a majority, and both houses need to agree.
At the present time, the debt ceiling is being used by house republicans (who retain a majority only due to gerrymandering) as a means to avoid doing their duty and negotiating a budget with the senate and the president.[
I can be reasonably sure that the Supremes will never touch it, unless, of course, Obama fills the bench with his best buds. Besides, the ceiling forces politicians to tell the country they want to spend even more. That's a good thing. I don't see a reason to get rid of it.
It needs to go. If not through the normal legislative process, then by a supreme court case.
He's got to break at least one of them. This puts the president in a position, where, by necessity he must rule by decree, and either find a way to raise money without congressional approval, cut spending at his own discretion (in violation of law), or borrow money without congressional approval (violating the debt ceiling). Thus, the debt ceiling law is a recipe for presidential rule by decree. This is not a precedent that I'd like to see made.
Originally posted by charles1952
The debt ceiling puts no limitations on the President, it just says "we're not going to spend more than such and such an amount."
to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling," on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.
Originally posted by Allenb83
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
You know, if Ron Paul were president, this kind of thing would be well on its way to being fixed. He would have taken that fiscal cliff and built a bridge, then he would have made a map so that america knows EXACTLY where its going.
Really though, he would have greatly reduced unnecessary spending, thereby balancing the budget, and america would have a competing currency by now, slowly replacing the corrupt federal reserve system.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.