What is Congress voting on this New Years Eve?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyezenmaitreya
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I understand what you are saying, but it appears you misunderstood me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usually bills aren't signed on a Friday night while everyone is out partying...especially if they have significant importance.


There is no specific time of day the president has to adhere to in signing a bill on his desk. Nothing was slipped by. The NDAA 2012 bill was debated on the floors of Congress. The Congressional Record shows this and it is public. It was known to be delivered to the president and it was expected that he would sign it.

So no, what you are saying doesn't make sense. The president signing a bill isn't some secret squirrel mission in which it is slipped by the American public.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I'm well aware that there is no specific time in which bills have to be signed, however that does not mean that the timing of the bill being signed wasn't suspect. I'm aware of how the process works, what i was implying is the fact that he had to choose that particular time to sign a bill of significant importance. He could have easily have gotten it signed at a time that wasn't as suspicious.
edit on 31-12-2012 by eyezenmaitreya because: typo



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Indeed.. That is how I've been reading and understanding it all this time as well. Anything after that is passing entirely new law to recreate whats been erased by the stroke of the clock tonight. I keep saying Wednesday for impact because it's simply the first business day when normal life resumes from the Holidays and whatever happens becomes evident to all for the first time.

If they really hit the exit door without doing this though....I guess this will be anything but a Happy New Year for many and we wouldn't have been alone by a long shot in watching those status updates anxiously.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm going to be paying close attention to the Asian markets for their reaction, since they will be the first indicator to it's impact.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

This may help a bit



Before he spoke, details of the emerging deal emerged. It would raise $600 billion in revenue over the next 10 years by increasing tax rates for individuals making more than $400,000 and households making above $450,000 annually, officials familiar with the talks said.



The Biden-McConnell negotiations appeared to offer the last hope for avoiding the fiscal cliff of $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts that economists fear could throw the country back into recession.

After an agreement in the Senate, the GOP-controlled House would have to approve the deal. Although the deadline is midnight, the House could still meet until the newly elected Congress convenes at noon EST on Thursday.
Source

It looks like they can play with the time a bit..... but if 600 Billion is all this comes to over 10 years? Yeah.. Okay.. QE-3 and Operation Twist added over 800 Billion in debt spending since just September. The math isn't working to feel at all good here.

* Dateline on this article showed it being posted at CNBC about an hour ago BTW
edit on 31-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You always seem knowlegable about these things, let me ask you a question.

In the past year, Obama signed an executive order basically doing an end-run around the Dream Act on immigration. Why couldn't he do something similar with this whole sequestration/fiscal cliff nonsense?


Why my furry little rabbit, pull up a chair! The order you speak of was a directive and direction order to Homeland Security (not an executive order; it was technically an executive action) in how they process certain eligible persons and their immigration status. It is a bureaucratic move (within the executive branch) and not a representative one obviously.

In this case, with the "fiscal cliff", it deals with budgetary measure and he would be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority (and would probably be enough to piss off even his most ardent supporters in Congress) to put out an executive order on Congress -- a separate branch of government.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 
They will have good reason to be watching , they might have a IOU ready, sell CA and FL to pay off some debt www.msnbc.msn.com...

The U.S. Treasury said it would hit a legal limit on borrowing on Monday but was launching new measures to keep the nation from defaulting on its debt.
Index Last Change
DJIA 13104.14 +166.03
+1.28%
NASDAQ 3019.51 +59.20
+2.00%
S&P 500 1426.19 +23.76
+1.69%
Quotes delayed 15+ min.
Major Market Indices

A Treasury official said the federal government was hitting its $16.4 trillion ceiling on borrowing.
the Dow seems to be doing ok , do they know something we don't?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You always seem knowlegable about these things, let me ask you a question.

In the past year, Obama signed an executive order basically doing an end-run around the Dream Act on immigration. Why couldn't he do something similar with this whole sequestration/fiscal cliff nonsense?


Why my furry little rabbit, pull up a chair! The order you speak of was a directive and direction order to Homeland Security (not an executive order; it was technically an executive action) in how they process certain eligible persons and their immigration status. It is a bureaucratic move (within the executive branch) and not a representative one obviously.

In this case, with the "fiscal cliff", it deals with budgetary measure and he would be hard pressed to find the constitutional authority (and would probably be enough to piss off even his most ardent supporters in Congress) to put out an executive order on Congress -- a separate branch of government.


Thank you for the answer and for not teasing me on my obvious lack of knowledge on the subject!

edit on 31-12-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by beezzer
 
They will have good reason to be watching , they might have a IOU ready, sell CA and FL to pay off some debt www.msnbc.msn.com...

The U.S. Treasury said it would hit a legal limit on borrowing on Monday but was launching new measures to keep the nation from defaulting on its debt.
Index Last Change
DJIA 13104.14 +166.03
+1.28%
NASDAQ 3019.51 +59.20
+2.00%
S&P 500 1426.19 +23.76
+1.69%
Quotes delayed 15+ min.
Major Market Indices

A Treasury official said the federal government was hitting its $16.4 trillion ceiling on borrowing.
the Dow seems to be doing ok , do they know something we don't?



Do you think that was wishful thinking on the part of Wall Street?

I don't see them (sic?) as an optimistic force, so perhaps they do know something.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Of course. It should be noted that Executive Orders only pertain to authority pursuant to Article II, Section 1. The orders should not go outside the scope of Article II and the authority and delegated presidential powers. That said, we know "mission creep" occurs as in the case with the order you mentioned.

Congress is delegated and directed to deal with immigration and naturalization via Article, Section 8 but an executive department (congress has no departments) applies the congressional dictates -- well, they should at least in a perfect world.

In the fiscal "crisis" scenario, it pertains solely with the legislative branch so there would be no way the president can invoke Article II, Section 1 authority and if he did, it would be in direct and open violation of the separation of powers doctrine (not that anyone actually cares in Washington about that though).

I know it is a rehash of what I said earlier, but wanted to provide where the authority of the EOs come from and why the president, in the case of the "fiscal crisis" cannot just pen it away with one.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Your post is now bookmarked for future reference. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Anything that we don't want passed will be passed when no one is looking.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Preacher76
 
how true how many know the deal went through nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com... the budget is now heading too or on Obama's desk might even be law now



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Preacher76
 
how true how many know the deal went through nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com... the budget is now heading too or on Obama's desk might even be law now



I can understand what you are getting at but it wasn't a secret. The news is deluged with reports of it passing. EVERYONE was looking.





top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum