OBAMA: GOP WILL FORCE SENIORS TO GO WITHOUT THEIR SS CHECKS IF THEY DON"T DROP THEIR IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    Here we go again.... GOP protecting millionaires, billionaires and corporate jet owners at the expense of the elderly. SICK!!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidALREADY BEING DISCUSSED HERE:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1677013


    Actually, it's being demagogued at that link.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 12, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    ....and WHO makes up the largest voting block, the most active voting block in the USA? senior citizens, that's who icon_exclaim.gif

    the republicans/tea baggers WILL get their collective asses kicked to the curb in the next elections.


    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    It sure is...

    but not in

    LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS OF EXTREME URGENCY111!1!!1one1!!
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 12, 2011 11:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidALREADY BEING DISCUSSED HERE:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1677013


    Actually, it's being demagogued at that link.





    QFT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidIt sure is...

    but not in

    LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS OF EXTREME URGENCY111!1!!1one1!!


    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:14 PM GMT
    The prez has to breaks SOME law if the debt ceiling doesn't pass. It's just a matter of which law...like the law that authorizes SS payments. Wasn't it DeMint that said that ALL the gov't needs to do is pay interest and nothing else?


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obama-has-to-break-some-law/2011/07/08/gIQAmN3Z3H_blog.html
    As Bruce Bartlett argued in The Post this morning, a failure to raise the debt ceiling will force the administration to do something that breaks the law. If it ignores the debt limit, it’ll be violating that law. If it prioritizes some spending — such as debt payments, so as to avoid default — over others, it will be violating the laws authorizing the spending it’s ignoring. The issue is that the current debt limit and the current spending laws of the United States are in conflict, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to make them consistent. If Congress fails in that duty, Obama really has no choice but to ignore one law or the other.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/geithner-says-prioritizing-debt-payments-deeply-irresponsible-.htmlDeMint’s proposal “is based on an untested and unacceptably risky assumption: that if the United States were to continue to pay interest on its debt -- yet failed to pay legally required obligations to its citizens, servicemen and women, and businesses -- there would be no adverse market reaction and no damage to the full faith and credit of the United States,” Geithner said. DeMint and 16 other Republican senators made the suggestion in a letter last month to Geithner.

    “You are also mistaken when you state that Treasury has ‘prioritized’ payments in the past,” Geithner wrote. “This is false. Never has Treasury failed to meet any obligation as a result of a debt-limit impasse, nor has Treasury ever ‘prioritized’ payments. Congress has never failed to raise the debt limit when necessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:21 PM GMT
    The debt limit was raised Seven times during the Bush presidency icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe prez has to breaks SOME law if the debt ceiling doesn't pass. It's just a matter of which law...like the law that authorizes SS payments. Wasn't it DeMint that said that ALL the gov't needs to do is pay interest and nothing else?


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obama-has-to-break-some-law/2011/07/08/gIQAmN3Z3H_blog.html
    As Bruce Bartlett argued in The Post this morning, a failure to raise the debt ceiling will force the administration to do something that breaks the law. If it ignores the debt limit, it’ll be violating that law. If it prioritizes some spending — such as debt payments, so as to avoid default — over others, it will be violating the laws authorizing the spending it’s ignoring. The issue is that the current debt limit and the current spending laws of the United States are in conflict, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to make them consistent. If Congress fails in that duty, Obama really has no choice but to ignore one law or the other.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/geithner-says-prioritizing-debt-payments-deeply-irresponsible-.htmlDeMint’s proposal “is based on an untested and unacceptably risky assumption: that if the United States were to continue to pay interest on its debt -- yet failed to pay legally required obligations to its citizens, servicemen and women, and businesses -- there would be no adverse market reaction and no damage to the full faith and credit of the United States,” Geithner said. DeMint and 16 other Republican senators made the suggestion in a letter last month to Geithner.

    “You are also mistaken when you state that Treasury has ‘prioritized’ payments in the past,” Geithner wrote. “This is false. Never has Treasury failed to meet any obligation as a result of a debt-limit impasse, nor has Treasury ever ‘prioritized’ payments. Congress has never failed to raise the debt limit when necessary.


    I find the Constitutional option appealing. The "debt ceiling" was brought into existence in the 1970s and it can be done away with just as easily.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidALREADY BEING DISCUSSED HERE:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1677013


    Sorry. I didn't catch your thread because IT WASN'T IN ALL CAPS!! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    I find the Constitutional option appealing. The "debt ceiling" was brought into existence in the 1970s and it can be done away with just as easily.


    Actually, the debt ceiling originated in both world wars:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debtArticle I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. From the founding of the United States through 1917 Congress authorized each individual debt issuance separately. In order to provide more flexibility to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917,[30] Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling", on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.

    The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was established in 1939. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling.