Presidential Campaign: 2012

[gingele]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Amy, have you commented here (or elsewhere) about this suggestion that the administration and Treasury could just proceed with paying the nation's debt anyway, even if no agreement to raise the debt ceiling has been reached, using the 14th amendment as a basis for such action? Or Stewart or you other lawyerly types?

And does such a thing seem politically likely?

Oh he could do it. But I'll be honest, I don't think Obama has the cojones.

[Seakony]

Why didn't one of those reporters ask Obama if he thought and would make GE pay their share of taxes? Or were they ordered not to ask about GE? Why not get Obama to admit he is in GE's Puppet?

[ryberg]

So you think it's not legally a problem, just politically?

Is the debt ceiling really unconstitutional? - Jun. 30, 2011

The Speech Obama Could Give: 'The Constitution Forbids Default' - Atlantic Mobile

America's debt: The debt ceiling and default | The Economist

The last piece goes further afield but calls the situation "a legal black hole"...

[gingele]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So you think it's not legally a problem, just politically?

Is the debt ceiling really unconstitutional? - Jun. 30, 2011

The Speech Obama Could Give: 'The Constitution Forbids Default' - Atlantic Mobile

America's debt: The debt ceiling and default | The Economist

The last piece goes further afield but calls the situation "a legal black hole"...

No I think legally it is a clusterf&%k. But he could do it nonetheless, and let the SCOTUS rule after the fact (and if they rule against him, he can just tell them to eff off anyway, it's not like they have an enforcement wing) and/or let the House impeach him...which wouldn't get past the Senate.

BTW - love that Epps piece in the Atlantic. If only....*sigh*

[STOGEY]

Now that I've read that George Soros along with hid move on org, seiu, and the Spanish population in general want to ban public displays of the American Flag, because it upsets them.

I think that it would better to send them all back where they came from if proven they're not here legally.
Plus all membership of the SEIU should be considered anti US and should be dealt with. Then all of George Soros holdings should be returned to him. Any further responsiblity to him should be canceled.

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by ryberg

So you think it's not legally a problem, just politically?

Is the debt ceiling really unconstitutional? - Jun. 30, 2011

The Speech Obama Could Give: 'The Constitution Forbids Default' - Atlantic Mobile

America's debt: The debt ceiling and default | The Economist

The last piece goes further afield but calls the situation "a legal black hole"...

If having a ceiling on fed debt is unconstitutional
. Then so would be the funding of other nations interests as we'll.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by beerbreath

Can we get out of the 3rd grade and just say they should be at the very least suspended?

I expected no less.

It's OK to place blame when it falls on Bush, but if any negativity is shown toward Obama it becomes 3rd grade.

I'm fine with repealing the tax cuts. But that's what they are...tax cuts. Each president that apporves them owns them until they are repealed. This is a fine example of why things can't get done in DC. Rahter than sit down at the table and discuss options, everything gets labeled...Bush Tax Cuts, Obama Care etc. Do away with the label and you've taken a first step at doing away with some of the partisan politics.

[D33RHUNT3R]

I think Obama should tell congress and the voting public to eff off and do what ever He likes.. just keep taxing and spending King Obama ......It wouldn't be anything new, He has been doing it since the day He got elected anyways..
We'll see how it plays on election day...

[roni]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

I think Obama should tell congress and the voting public to eff off and do what ever He likes.. just keep taxing and spending King Obama ......It wouldn't be anything new, He has been doing it since the day He got elected anyways..
We'll see how it plays on election day...

That is not accurate

[tmc]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Given the fact that we have 14 trillion we have to pay back, simply balancing the budget is not enough - you and I are both smart enough to realize that. We're also smart enough to know that we can't cut enough out of the budget to pay off the national debt in any reasonable time.

So assuming that we don't want our grandchildren still paying off our national debt, let me just ask you straight out...

Is there ANY ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases you would support in order to not only balance the budget but to start to pay down our debt?

If you don't like Obama's 3 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in revenue increases, how about 10 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in revenue increases. Would you support that?

I don't think so, mainly because those in DC can't be trusted with the money. When George Bush Sr. signed the tax increase during his presidency it was with the understanding that Congress would cut spending; how well did that work? The feds know quite well how precarious is our circumstance yet they continue to add tens of billions, hundreds of billions, in reckless and worthless spending even today; does that leave you to believe they can be trusted with ever more money?

To balance the budget, no tax increases are necessary, just revert to the spending levels of 2008 and save all of the fraud and waste in Medicare that Mr. Obama claims is recoverable and the budget is more than balanced. As for attacking the debt long term, continue to cut spending with current revenues as they are and use the excess to pay off debt; I don't think the politicians have it in them to do so, however. Get rid of Mr. Obama and his crony capitalism to allow the economy to grow, and we will have plenty of revenue to pay down our debt; we just can"t allow any more spending.

[tmc]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Exactly. One can just as easily ask tmc, "Do you really think the world would come to an end if we taxed the rich and filthy rich a little bit more, maybe even just what they used to be taxed?" Or cut exemptions, loopholes for corporate jets, and so on.

Excellent point; one can easily ask a recovering alcoholic "Do you really think your life will end with just one more drink; after all, you've already had 50,000 drinks in your lifetime?".

[roni]

Originally Posted by minnjim

Well that sure helped, didn't it!

Oil prices: back to before the strategic reserves were tapped - Jun. 30, 2011

Originally Posted by Mikey

Just more wasteful spending...

OMG oil down a couple bucks this morning.

You guys are funny

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by tmc

I don't think so, mainly because those in DC can't be trusted with the money. When George Bush Sr. signed the tax increase during his presidency it was with the understanding that Congress would cut spending; how well did that work? The feds know quite well how precarious is our circumstance yet they continue to add tens of billions, hundreds of billions, in reckless and worthless spending even today; does that leave you to believe they can be trusted with ever more money?

To balance the budget, no tax increases are necessary, just revert to the spending levels of 2008 and save all of the fraud and waste in Medicare that Mr. Obama claims is recoverable and the budget is more than balanced. As for attacking the debt long term, continue to cut spending with current revenues as they are and use the excess to pay off debt; I don't think the politicians have it in them to do so, however. Get rid of Mr. Obama and his crony capitalism to allow the economy to grow, and we will have plenty of revenue to pay down our debt; we just can"t allow any more spending.

Just like we did in the last 8 years of no Democratic President, lessened regulation, reduced taxes on the rich and large corporations, and just "allowing the economy to grow" right up to 2008, right? THAT sure worked!

[tmc]

Originally Posted by gingele

No I think legally it is a clusterf&%k. But he could do it nonetheless, and let the SCOTUS rule after the fact (and if they rule against him, he can just tell them to eff off anyway, it's not like they have an enforcement wing) and/or let the House impeach him...which wouldn't get past the Senate.

BTW - love that Epps piece in the Atlantic. If only....*sigh*

While the articles are interesting reads, they are not really the issue. All that Congress needs to do is to channel funding that would go to some useless program and direct it to pay off whatever debt is due at the time. There is more than sufficient revenue stream to cover all of our outstanding debt loads; we just have to use monies currently allocated for nonsense to pay off our legal debts. There need not be any Constitutional issue at all unless we manufacture such a crisis, which the President seems wont to do.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by horizon200

As I have asked before...Obama extended the Bush era tax cuts....aren't they now Obama Tax cuts?

How about we call them what folks (like myself) in the estate planning field have been calling them for 10+ years: "EGTRRA" (said "egg-terra"). This is the acronym for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 that legislated the tax cuts we are discussing. (I'd also include JGTRRA along with it, just for simplicity's sake).

That way we avoid the game of hot potato entirely.

And one feature of EGTRRA that folks seem to forget - the tax cuts, by design, were intentionally designed to be temporary. There was a sunset provision built into the bill. When they were implemented - they were intended to lapse.