It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama Should Issue an Executive Order to Raise the Debt Ceiling

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I found this blog interesting:


As the debt ceiling deadline of October 17 approaches, President Barack Obama and the United States Congress are playing a game of chicken with the world’s economy on the line. As both sides become increasingly entrenched in their positions, the risk of the United States defaulting on its debt, and of the economy spinning into a recession grows. Meanwhile, President Obama has the institutional authority to put an end to this game, thus unilaterally preventing an international economic crisis. The question remains whether he will do so, and what those actions would mean for the crisis.

It is the right of any president to declare a state of emergency and to take action necessary to protect the nation.......


See whole post here:
www.brookings.edu...



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
He'll gain a bit of my respect if he does, but in doing so he would also possibly set the precedence for him to be impeached. In doing so he would become a martyr of the democratic party, and could possibly set off another chain of events that engages the democrats to the point of sweeping in 2014 and 2016.

The Dems let their guard down in 2010 and 2012 gerrymandering secured too many hairline victories by the GOP.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Evil_Santa
and could possibly set off another chain of events that engages the democrats to the point of sweeping in 2014 and 2016.


Now that is a scary thought!
Don't you think we're in enough trouble as it is?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
It is the right of any president to declare a state of emergency and to take action necessary to protect the nation.......

Will he throw Japanese people into internment camps?

How about those who he views as subversive, like the Tea Party?

How about personal "kill lists"?

"Never let a good crisis go to waste"

Slippery slope to use his powers in any emergency, real, or fabricated crisis.

Read the Patriot ACT before you ask for emergency powers. You know. The one he resigned.


One of the most egregious examples of Presidential emergency powers violating civil liberties is when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) authored EO 9066 in February 1942. EO 9066 designated parts of Arizona, Washington state, Oregon, and California’s coastal areas as military zones, which delegated extreme powers to the military. EO 9066 permitted the military to relocate immigrants and American citizens into assembly areas, commonly called “internment camps,” based on their ethnic heritage. The military was able to detain these people without probable cause, warrants, or trials, all in direct violation of the Constitution as written in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.



Drones and Presidential emergency powers: Security vs. civil liberties



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


Yeah I think he should too.
Go on Obama you know you want to do it.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I agree, executive orders shouldn't be used so frivolously. Let the elected officials 'work' it out. If the Prez starts issuing and enforcing exec orders for something as trivial as a bipartisan dispute, I foresee a dangerous precedent.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Actually, no, he shouldnt.

EOs should be eliminated altogether. Why? Because they have the force of law yet they are enacted by the executive branch not the legislative branch. Dictatorial.

Furthermore, this whole debt ceiling nonsense is easily addressed: CUT SPENDING.

But they wont.

They wont cut spending. Why? Its like a drug to them. The easiest place to start is with the trillions being spent on the overseas empire and the domestic police state.

No way in hell they want to set the precedence of spending less.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 

BUT say they can't reach an agreement and he lets the economy tank - then what? As both sides have claimed it is not acceptable to let the US default. Blame either side if you want and for whatever reason they can not reach an agreement the consequences can be as bad as you want to imagine and maybe worse. Worldwide depresson comes to mind - then maybe chaos? And then all those executive orders like you were talking about from the past might even be worse. Hungry people and riots in the streets - those hidden government concentration camps that conspiracy theorists are always taliking about - In a few words all hell could break loose. Action should be taken now before it comes to that. This US default issue is a real national emergency and Obama should act now.
edit on 16-10-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Quadrivium

Evil_Santa
and could possibly set off another chain of events that engages the democrats to the point of sweeping in 2014 and 2016.


Now that is a scary thought!
Don't you think we're in enough trouble as it is?


Well.. considering the record amount of filibustering that has gone on during his terms and that the Dems only had some 9 weeks of owning congress/executive branch in 2010, I would say that no - it is not a scary thought. What is a scary thought, is this stagnation of government continuing. Put people to work, pass jobs bills. Spend the 3.4 trillion dollars our infrastructure needs to be upgraded (before we have another bridge collapse. My dad's OSHA and dealt with the dead bodies in MN 6 years ago when the 35W bridge collapsed).

"Oh we don't have 3.4 trillion to spend on that"

Yes, we do, and that will put a lot of people to work, and provide our citizens with disposable income to spend and boost the economy. Where should it come from? Frankly the top 1%. They benefit the most from using our infrastructure, and they should foot a lot of the bill for it. Argue as much as you want, but if wasn't for interstate commerce, they wouldn't be rich.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

AlienView
As both sides have claimed it is not acceptable to let the US default.


But why? America's government is killing the country to pay off debts to other nations in US dollars just so they can rationalize printing more freaking debt backed dollars. Makes zero sense. Let the default hit. If the internal banks decide to refuse solid loans to the people because the government is stiffing China, nationalize the Federal Reserve and place the FED and every other bank under Congressional control.

Aside from cheaply made oriental trinkets and a handfull of specialty import items, there's nothing the USA imports which it cannot either make inside America or do completely without.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   

gladtobehere
But they wont.

They wont cut spending. Why? Its like a drug to them. The easiest place to start is with the trillions being spent on the overseas empire and the domestic police state.

No way in hell they want to set the precedence of spending less.


I too think they should cut spending.

Then maybe people like you got what's sorely coming to you as the economy collapses completely.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryyptyk
 


This is not trivial bipartisan dispute considering that not only US, but also the world´s economy is at stake.

This matters a lot that it gets done in time. If the deadline comes up and nothing happens, I believe Obama should use executive order, as the implications of not doing it might be far worse.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   

AlienView
reply to post by sonnny1
 

BUT say they can't reach an agreement and he lets the economy tank - then what? As both sides have claimed it is not acceptable to let the US default. ...
edit on 16-10-2013 by AlienView because: (no reason given)


Meh, honestly let the U.S. default on its fake debts. Anything done thus far is like repairing a pipe leak with duct tape, its a quick fix at best. The fake debt will continue to pile up and eventually it -will- crash down.

I'll bring the beer.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   

burdman30ott6

AlienView
As both sides have claimed it is not acceptable to let the US default.


But why? America's government is killing the country to pay off debts to other nations in US dollars just so they can rationalize printing more freaking debt backed dollars. Makes zero sense. Let the default hit. If the internal banks decide to refuse solid loans to the people because the government is stiffing China, nationalize the Federal Reserve and place the FED and every other bank under Congressional control.

Aside from cheaply made oriental trinkets and a handfull of specialty import items, there's nothing the USA imports which it cannot either make inside America or do completely without.











because that would not be profitable for those who worship money



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Compared to other possible crises, yes, its very trivial. This is the political equivalent of intervening between a pair of siblings fighting over a toy. Neither party will let things go too far, and eventually they will come to a resolution. Just like kids fighting over a toy, a few things might get broken to get there, but they'll get there.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The debt ceiling will need raising again in less time than has passed since the last debt ceiling raise. And again after that, even sooner that time.

And so on and so forth.

Until you understand banking is inherently fraudulent, it is legalised fraud and/or counterfeiting and banks having an oligopoly on issuing of the nation's medium for commerce, its national currency is an abomination.

That Congress should be the sole issuer of nation's money, as per the Constitution.

I wouldn't hold my breath, tho.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Kryyptyk
reply to post by Cabin
 


Compared to other possible crises, yes, its very trivial. This is the political equivalent of intervening between a pair of siblings fighting over a toy. Neither party will let things go too far, and eventually they will come to a resolution. Just like kids fighting over a toy, a few things might get broken to get there, but they'll get there.


If banks are not abolished before the US defaults on its debt.

The economy WILL collapse completely.

There is absolutely no question about this.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienView
 


Its the price America pays for 16+ trillion in Debt.

Its the price "we the people" pay for electing these morons.

Like I said though. EO's are very dangerous. If you think we have it bad now, just think what a tyrant could do with EO's.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Like I said, a few things might get broken.

Honestly, this fake economy collapsing isn't the end of the world.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryyptyk
 


One of the leading credit bureaus has already put the US on a negative alert list and there is like less than two days left for default. Yes maybe they are like kids fighting but its time for an adult to step in and break it up - An executing order might, at least temporarily stop the slide into economic chaos or as one major financial analyst put it economic Armageddon.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join