News Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Bill Clinton suggested that if he were president, he would use the 14th Amendment to bypass the congressional debt limit, although he was uncertain about its constitutionality. Some participants in the discussion argue that this action could be justified to prevent economic collapse, while others emphasize that it would violate the Constitution by overstepping presidential authority. Legal experts, including Laurence Tribe, assert that only Congress has the power to manage U.S. debt, and any presidential attempt to act unilaterally would be unconstitutional. The debate highlights the tension between maintaining fiscal responsibility and the potential consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling. Ultimately, the conversation reflects deep concerns about the implications of either ignoring congressional authority or risking national economic stability.
  • #121
WhoWee said:
Cheer up - a meeting with the Presiden, Vice President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ended (saw a news report). I expect Harry Reid will now get something done with the Republican leadership in Congress.

Ah! Hahahahahaha!

Told jah!


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/173159-reid-pelosi-to-meet-obama-gop-source-says-no-boehner-deal"
07/24/11
...
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) excoriated the White House for playing politics with the debt limit, according to call participants.
...

It comes from the NY Times, Sept. 30, 1981, defending President Reagan and blaming the Democrats in Congress for playing games with the debt ceiling.

Now if we could just get them to play nice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
WhoWee said:
As OmCheeto pointed out - the problem with Social Security is mismanagement of the surplus funds. At a very near time in the future - there won't be a surplus and funds will need to be borrowed to pay benefits - while the number of beneficiaries increases.

If the government manages its debt levels, it will be able to repay those funds with interest.
 
  • #123
SixNein said:
I think the fact that GE had negative taxes proves the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

You do realize that GE CEO is one of President Obama's closest allies? You do realize that even though GE has cut thousands of US jobs - their CEO is heading President Obama's jobs commission? You do realize that President Obama has brought GE executives along on business creation trips to India and elsewhere? Last, do you realize that GE owns NBC - and NBC has not been very critical of President Obama - have they?
 
  • #124
SixNein said:
If the government manages its debt levels, it will be able to repay those funds with interest.

The Government borrows over 40% of it's cash flow - with no end in sight.
 
  • #125
OmCheeto said:
Now if we could just get them to play nice.
Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down. We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.
 
  • #126
WhoWee said:
If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

And if the richest 400 Americans didn't have an accumulated wealth equivalent to the poorest 155 million Americans, then you might have a point also.
 
  • #127
turbo-1 said:
Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down. We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.

When the President insistes he won't sign legislation that doesn't extend the debt ceiling past his attempt to be re-elected in 2012 - how can that not be labeled "playing politics"?
 
  • #128
Ivan Seeking said:
Entitlements must be cut in the long term but that is not the issue today. The issue today goes back to Bachmann and her claim that we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills and not raise the debt ceiling.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, a lot of people won't get money they are due. Geithner and Obama will have to pick and choose who that may be but there are no good choices. Shall it be the elderly and their SS checks, the military, medicare payments...? We know we can't afford to default on our debt payments.

Given that Bachmann is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans, this absurd notion of defaulting on payments due is now mainstream thinking on the right.

What do you call people who simply choose to not pay their bills?

Yes, the debt ceiling needs to be raised, and it needs to be raised very soon; however, the discussion of spending cuts and tax increases will also have to be done soon. But there is a deeper problem than revenue and spending cuts. We have some serious legislation problems in areas like the patent systems that are in dire need of being addressed.

But I don't know if its even possible to fix America's problems given todays political environment.
 
  • #129
OmCheeto said:
And if the richest 400 Americans didn't have an accumulated wealth equivalent to the poorest 155 million Americans, then you might have a point also.

What is the value of the entitlement programs these 155 million people will receive?
 
  • #130
Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now as I understand it, when the Democrats propose spending cuts, that's not a compromise. But when the Republicans say they won't raise taxes on the rich, that is a compromise because what they really want to do is lower taxes on the rich. As a result, I have decided to do a little compromising myself. I am going to say that you are wrong. That's up from saying that it is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
 
  • #131
Ivan Seeking said:
[the rich] enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman,
Ignoring the rest of the junk in your post, I'm going to ask what you mean by this and source it. This claim seems outright delusional claim when compared with a cursory glance at historical data -- i.e. the highest bracket of marginal income tax rate was at its maximum in 1944-1945 (94%), and the minimum occurred in 1988-1990 (28%), and has been in the 35%-40% range ever since.

(source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)
 
  • #132
WhoWee said:
You do realize that GE CEO is one of President Obama's closest allies? You do realize that even though GE has cut thousands of US jobs - their CEO is heading President Obama's jobs commission? You do realize that President Obama has brought GE executives along on business creation trips to India and elsewhere? Last, do you realize that GE owns NBC - and NBC has not been very critical of President Obama - have they?

Do you believe all of this started with the election of Obama? In addition, do you believe GE is the only one doing this?

Just a side note, NBC was bought by comcast in Jan.
 
  • #133
SixNein said:
Do you believe all of this started with the election of Obama? In addition, do you believe GE is the only one doing this?

Just a side note, NBC was bought by comcast in Jan.

Shall I post the long list of how Senator Obama was going to change the way things are done in Washington?
 
  • #134
turbo-1 said:
Apparently the "liberal media" can accuse Obama of "playing politics" when he offers the GOP concessions in spending. And the right-wing nuts can keep slamming him when he offers those concesssions and they turn them down.

Bernie Sanders said he wants Obama replaced in 2012.
Obama himself said that the Democratic leadership is not happy with him for offering so many concessions.

The President of the United States of America said:
And to their credit, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the Democratic leadership, they sure did not like the plan that we are proposing to Boehner, but they were at least willing to engage in a conversation because they understood how important it is for us to actually solve this problem.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president"

turbo-1 said:
We have a really twisted media-circus operating today.

I canceled my cable back in January 2010. I have never regretted it. But I am grateful for everyone here at the forum for reminding me that nothing has changed. :smile:

And guess what foolish thing I've been doing with all that spare change.

I've been investing in the stock market. :rolleyes:

hmmm... What's going to happen to all that money if the debt ceiling isn't raised? I've heard rumours that I might lose my shirt! hmmm... Actually, I'll probably dig up that can of silver bullion I buried in the garden, cash them in, and buy more stock.

---------------------------------
(yes, my rototiller is still broke ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135
You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60. :-p

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.
 
  • #136
Jimmy Snyder said:
Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now as I understand it, when the Democrats propose spending cuts, that's not a compromise...
You need to reread my post, because I said nothing of the sort.
 
  • #137
WhoWee said:
What is the value of the entitlement programs these 155 million people will receive?

I don't know. But since we might default on the debt, and the Social Security program appears to be just a bunch of IOU's at the moment, my guess is zero.

Hey! Problem solved!

Now I understand politics.

Thank god I never planned on living to be 65.
 
  • #138
WhoWee said:
Shall I post the long list of how Senator Obama was going to change the way things are done in Washington?

What point are you trying to make? You seem incapable of discussing America's problems; instead, you seem fixated on one person. Even if Obama loses next election and Mitt Romney wins, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. Perhaps you want someone else? I don't know.

At any rate, these problems are still going to be present no matter who is president.
 
  • #139
Hurkyl said:
You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60. :-p

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

Closing tax loop holes is exactly what the debt limit debate has been about.
 
  • #140
Hurkyl said:
You guys are getting sidetracked, I think.

SixNein: one example -- especially a cherry-picked example -- rarely proves anything. Also, it is patently absurd to think you can refute a fact about the behavior of the whole by claiming some small aspect of the whole behaves in a contrary fashion. You're line of reasoning is very much like claiming the life expectancy in the U.S. isn't 78 years old, because you know someone who died at age 60. :-p

WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

Hardly a conspiracy theory - the President Obama and GE connection is quite well known - even criticised by the Left.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20048952-503544.html
"Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.


They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.


"How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?" Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. "And under Immelt's direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes." "


As for NBC not being critical - we'll label that IMO.

As for the trip to India - http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/1...-ge-make-clean-tech-export-case-to-19304.html

"Obama and GE Make Clean Tech Export Case to India as Currency Issues Boil
"
 
  • #141
Hurkyl said:
WhoWee: I don't think arguing a conspiracy theory involving Obama is very relevant to the thread, or appropriate for the forum.

I didn't see it as a conspiracy. Though some might see it that way.

I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!

Sun-tzu said:
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

enemies, being defined in this case, as those who take advantage of the system for their own gains.

Though as I said before, I was heavily invested in GE, but divested when I read their "screw you" message in their annual report. Thanks GE, but no, screw you.
 
  • #142
OmCheeto said:
I was surprised about the Immelt thing when I first heard about it, and had to think about it for a couple of minutes, then, BING!
That would be Stanley Bing, right?
 
  • #143
SixNein said:
At any rate, these problems are still going to be present no matter who is president.

Why the hell do you think they put Palin on the ticket last election? Because they wanted to be in charge during this mess?

:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:
:smile::smile::smile::smile::smile::smile:

:smile:

:redface:

Sorry. I'm not laughing at you. Your statement is correct.
 
  • #144
Newai said:
That would be Stanley Bing, right?

?

Actually, I'm so illiterate in almost every area of everything, I had to look up who "Harry Reid" was about an hour ago.

Bing. hmmm... "Executricks: Or How to Retire While You're Still Working". I think my boss read that book.

"Sun Tzu Was a Sissy: Conquer Your Enemies, Promote Your Friends, and Wage the Real Art of War ".
Wow! Two Sun Tzu references in less than an hour.

It's a sign!
 
  • #145
WhoWee said:
If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #146
BobG said:
No kidding! The bottom 50% of earners only earned 13% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.

A flat tax sounds great when the top 50% are paying 97% of the federal income taxes, but surely you don't think a flat tax would mean the top 50% would only pay 50% of federal income taxes. With a flat tax, the top 50% would still pay 87% of federal income taxes.

The top 10% earn $3.8 trillion a year. The bottom 50% earn $1.05 trillion a year.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in05tr.xls

IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #147
IMO - we need more tax payers - and immigration is not the answer - the bottom 50% needs to take a cut in re-distribution. In expectation of arguments about Social Security - why did the President cut the SS deduction - what did it accomplish?

I define a tax payer as someone who looks at their paycheck and says "oh, its lower than I thought because of taxes." Including only federal income tax is silly- why don't we only look at state taxes? After all- lots of the services most people use are funded by state taxes.

As to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes, it was a one-time cut designed to stimulate consumer demand in a recession. Keep in mind-tax cuts are the right-wing favored forms of economic stimulus.
 
  • #148
SixNein said:
What point are you trying to make? You seem incapable of discussing America's problems; instead, you seem fixated on one person. Even if Obama loses next election and Mitt Romney wins, I doubt there will be much difference in policy. Perhaps you want someone else? I don't know.

Not Ronald Reagan. New Party of Reagan
 
  • #149
Newai said:
http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:
That's an unsourced line from Politico. I've seen no quotes to reporters, no public statements, and certainly nothing written down from the President, nor from Democratic leadership in Congress.
 
  • #150
Ivan Seeking said:
Obama offered something like a $4 trillion debt reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot if we are to achieve a balanced budget, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class? Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. It was crazy to refuse it! But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

I don't know what this long thread is about and all the discussing, but Ivan nailed with this posts.

It is just the mother of all no-brainers http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

I'm from Europe, and as everbody else here, it is beyond my comprehension how anybody half-way educated or sensible can defend or even support the current Republican party and their irresponsible and insane behavior.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
18K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
11K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K