Republicans make fools of themselves as the International Community loses patience with America.

reply to post by spangledbanner


I appreciate the response, but it wasn't addressed to you. Your response really falls into A, your knee-jerk reaction wouldn't be to find ways to increase revenue while allowing the wife to continue with reckless spending.

Which I applaud.

Just because our politicians are acting like a bunch of brats, we don't have to.

Obama had a lot of great bills and when he tried to pass them he was blocked by a wall of Republican politicians, paid for by lobyists.

Then they screamed Why isn't he getting anything done?! As they raked in the bucks. Seriously? This is high school nonsense.

We all know Obama has great intentions and he's trying really hard to improve things. Why are all his bills getting blocked? Read the bills and REALLY look into it. Don't just believe what MSM is telling you.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Among other things...Budgets set lines to CONTAIN spending, not just set out money to allow for it.

True, but that is the responsibility of the Congress, not the executive. If the Congress passes a budget and the President vetoes it, the responsibility rests with him. But if the Congress doesn't pass any budget, Congress has abdicated its responsibility.

Heck, budgets have become so irrelevant now, we have our own Treasury Secretary calling for unlimited debt ceiling authority transferred to the Executive Branch. Why bother having the House of Representatives be a nuisance to deal with on that at all? (Except it's a constitutional thing ..and it's clear in absolute terms on it for the duties of Congress as a Branch)

Not quite. The debt ceiling was a law made by the Congress and a silly one at that. Once the Congress authorises a certain amount of spending and specify the tax rates for revenue, they have no business specifying how much can be borrowed. The difference between the authorised spending and accrued revenues is something the executive has to necessarily borrow. Debt ceiling makes sense only when the spending doesn't have to be authorised by the Congress.

I have no idea when the crash comes anymore because honestly? I have NO idea why it hasn't already happened.

Same here.

Originally posted by PrincessTofu
Just because our politicians are acting like a bunch of brats, we don't have to.

Obama had a lot of great bills and when he tried to pass them he was blocked by a wall of Republican politicians, paid for by lobyists.

Then they screamed Why isn't he getting anything done?! As they raked in the bucks. Seriously? This is high school nonsense.

We all know Obama has great intentions and he's trying really hard to improve things. Why are all his bills getting blocked? Read the bills and REALLY look into it. Don't just believe what MSM is telling you.

Bills do not originate in the Executive branch for one thing, secondly do you really for a second think that Obama isn't influenced by lobbyists as well???

And no one listens to the MSM, we figured they were shrills a long, long time ago.

Originally posted by PvtHudson
reply to post by spangledbanner

 

I love how its ALWAYS the Republicans fault, no matter if they're the ones in control or not.

Because it is always their fault. Of course before you jump down my throat because I called out your party I will also say it is always the democrats fault, too. In fact you can extend this whole thing out to saying it is the fault of the two party system. Neither party has put forth any real legislation to fix our mess and the legislation that is passed is hijacked by the opposing party so they can add a bunch of frivolous riders that have nothing to do with the original bill. By the time it is agreed upon and voted into law it has been completely bastardized and stripped of anything meaningful. I cite Obamacare as an example.

reply to post by Observor

Oh.. WHOA.... Back up there a bit. Yes. It is the duty of Congress to form and pass the budget. To be specific, it's the duty of the House of Representatives to produce a budget, then hash that out with the senate ..THEN have the President sign it.

Hold the phone though. You're saying this like the President has no blame at all. This isn't grade school and we aren't before the principle over a hall fight. It doesn't MATTER who has "technical blame". Being a LEADER means transcending the blame game to GET JOBS DONE....not point to others for why they aren't, whine about it, then go on after writing the whole thing off as unfixable.

That is a cowards way and the way this President's chosen way so far. What can he do???? What I've been SAYING he can do.

The Office of the President WAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN A POWER TO ADDRESS AND SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. HE CHOOSES NOT TO USE IT.

That's right... The President CHOOSES not to solve this problem. The power HE has is to call those little children back by the scruff of their worthless necks back into the House and back into the Senate 100% AGAINST THEIR WILL and force them to sit like the punks they've become in those high offices,....and lose every last day of THEIR holidays.

We'll see in a week or two....how we all feel about the vacations both Boehner and Obama let everyone else around them take because they've essentially AGREED TO LET THIS HAPPEN.

Blame both..as both deserve every bit of it. It's taken Boehner and Obama both to do this.

Republicans are at fault. Austerity is going to happen, so at this point it is just a matter of political narrative.

If Obama offered up $1 Trillion in cuts the Republicans should have taken it. The fact is smaller government is a Republican plank and $1 Trillion in cuts would shrink government more than the cost of raising taxes on the top 2%. The tax raising bit is obviously a hostage situation. Nonetheless, the shrinking of government would dwarf an supposed gains by allowing the wealthy earners to keep 5% more of their income.

The Democrat narrative would fall on its face. The would finally get their "tax the rich" mantra realized and it wouldn't avert austerity. The onus of shrinking government would fall on Obama for signing the bill, causing an internal rift within their party.

The Republicans win big in that scenario. Obama is holding the bag, the Republicans are moving towards their political objectives. The narrative for 2014/2016 is simply illustrating that the Democrat plan is untenable and hasn't produced results.

The problem for Republicans is they're allowing the Democrats to make their argument for them.

Wrighting the ship of state is an entirely different subject.

reply to post by HappyLIBERTARIAN

"The Government spends entirely too much money on programs that should be eliminated. We have over 220 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities like S.S., Medicare, and Medicaid."

Unfunded? Can I have back the money that I PAID OUT for them? In EXTRA taxes according to my paycheck stub! For 40 f'ing years! I agree that the government is wasting money. The bridge to nowhere. The money for the airport for Biden. Bailout money for corporations. However I do tend to get upset when people like you say "We already have taken your money and we do not have to give it back as we agreed to do." Which in effect is what you are saying. I also do not believe that those that did not pay into those programs should be entitled to anything from them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I am sorry if it looked like I was trying to assign blames to individuals. I was trying to point out the shift in responsibilities and power from the institution of Congress to that of the President.

Remember when the Congress authorised George W. Bush to "take necessary steps" with regard to Iraq? That was an instance where the Congress abdicated its power to declare war. The Congress is now abdicating its power to pass a budget. Essentially the checks and balances are being slowly eroded and popwer is being consolidated in the institution of President way beyond what it was originally meant to be.

Yeah, sure, the President could have made the Congress sit in session until the budget is passed, but he can't really make the year 2013 not arrive until the budget is passed.

There is really no conflict between parties or individuals here. Everyone seems to be in general agreement on letting this change happen. The President can usurp the powers of the Congress to pass the budget citing the failure of the institution to do its job and the legislators can start a blame game why and how it happened and how it could have been averted. But the end result will be the President will no longer need the authorisation of the Congress for spending and borrowing and the legislators can dissociate themselves from the results of the spending and borrowing decisions of the government since they never authorised it.

reply to post by Observor

Hmmm... The only thing there I wonder about is your assertion that the President can "usurp" the power of the Legislative Branch to create and put a budget in place without them. He COULD ...I guess....and the Supreme Court could assist in the removal of a President for cause and action against the interests of the United States, too. Even HE has some limits...and that would be a few miles past them.

We can joke about lines crossed....and we can lament how CLOSE Obama walks to those lines of outright impeachable offenses....but if he "deemed" a budget, it's not even close to debatable. He will have violated the black letter law of the Constitution.

There are very few things that are spelled out, specifically for process and methods complete with dates to be done by under law in the document itself. The Budget process is ONE of those things and so failure to do it isn't just a quinky dink they make up later. They have violated the laws they swore to uphold, defend and serve...and they've done it 4 years running. 2 years as a Democrat House and 2 years as a Republican house now. 50/50 blame on this period for that, eh?

(By the way...I find no logic in the argument that because holding them in session MAY not work...it's not worth trying. So....in alternative? They have NO downside to blowing the nation off and leaving us to suffer their failure. if nothing else, Obama can hold them in session for punitive reasons ..and THAT is reason enough for me, on this)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You are assuming that the different institutions, the Congress, the President and the Federal Supreme Court, have differing views on this. I think they are all on the same page. Hence anything done will stand the scruitiny of the Supreme Court.

The ostensible reason offered will be this: Congress failed to authorise spending. Should the entire administration shutdown because Congress failed to fulfil its constitutional responsibility? What constitutional recourse does that President have, when he cannot fulfil his constitutional obligations because another branch failed to fulfil its own? Unless there is a provision (I would love to know if one exists) that deems all the non-discretionary spending approved if the Congress doesn't pass the budget/approve spending, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis, meaning governance as per the letter of the constitution and established procedure is no longer an option.

As I said previously, precipitating this crisis is a deliberate action on the part of the Congress and the President, everyone being completely aware of the consequences and everyone preferring those consequences to the alternative as viewed by each person.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by spangledbanner

 

So please explain how it is "Republicans fault". Members of congress from BOTH sides of the isle worked out an agreement a while ago and that was rejected by the president because it didn't include tax hikes on the rich. So in essence this could already have been solved had the president not chose ideology over compromise.

edit on 21-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

it always amazes me when republican politicians, screw over middle income and lower income republican voters, all in the name of protecting the tax breaks of the top 2% of the wealthest people in this country.
the republican politicians what to cut republicans social security benefits, their medicare benefits, their child care benefits, their unemployment benefits, their educational benefits, etc.......do the republicans voters realize these cuts WILL IMPACT THEM TOO???

Let me ask you a question. If you came home and found out your wife was overdrawing the bank account by 1,500 dollars a month would you:

A: Remove her from the account; or
B: Say to yourself.. "Damn, I better look for a second and third job, I've GOT to find a way to get this lady a lot more money!!!"


(I'm not a Republican, I'm a registered Independent.)

edit on 22-12-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

What is she buying?

i mentioned in another thread my opinion of the "international community" and the fact that they are just as fake as every other banking scandal, ponzi system in the US. they have no position to loose patients with anyone, they are liars, cheats, killers and worse, no different than the FED.

what i find amusing is anyone that thinks this current system can be fixed. you can't fix something that isn't broken and this system isn't actually broken but on the contrary, it has worked so well for the bankers that it ran it's entire course already.

the only single issue everyone should be very concerned about, is why no one is being prosecuted for their crimes. until such time that we have a government willing to arrest and convict these banker criminals, NOTHING will change. i wish i knew how we could get there from here, but i just don't see it happening as yet.

reply to post by Kali74


NO cuts to SS/Medicare.

BIG cuts to the defense budget.

We can afford it.

The international community used to rage about things like drone strike and Gitmo, but they are suspiciously silent when Obama is in charge......


Who gives a flying crap what these hypocrites think?

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by TheTardis

 

My way or the highway?

First of all, the Republican house voted down Boner's plan B.

Secondly, our president ran on this idea and won in an overwhelming fashion. Now these government officials job is to represent the American people. A vastg majority want the President's plan.

Lastly, the "My way or the highway" you're referring to, is the way the Teapublicans do things. This is why Plan B was voted down! By your own party. It is the GOP being obstructionist on this issue. No ifs ands or buts at all. No debate about it at all. The people all know. Just not Limbaugh listeners.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

President Obama barely won. This is why I don't take leftists, foreign nationals or certain groups with racial agendas seriously. President Obama didn't run on any idea. He was a coward during the election that used voter fraud to get re-elected and didn't run on any solid issue at all.