American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Obama is, as previously stated, always the least qualified man in the room.

As for Mrs. BHO, I'm not into fat black chics so I have never given her any consideration (not a racist comment, if you think so, FU).

The facts are simple:

1. BHO has run the govt at a significant deficit, thereby creating the need for increasing the debt limit.

2. There is no need to increase the debt limit in order to avoid defaulting on the debt (the US brings in more than adequate revenues every month to satisfy our debt service needs.

3. The American public is pissed about this BS and will punish Dems for being Dems and Repubs for acting like Dems.

Very logical and enlightening. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;418516](not a racist comment, if you think so, FU).[/QUOTE]

The Chinese wife of Rupert Murdoch reacted with speed in the defense of her husband, as he was about to be assaulted by a demonstrator during the News Corp hearings in London. Very attractice, tall and slim despite having child a few year back, her instinct to protect her husband was incredible. No hesitation, she move immediately and took a right swing at the attacker's face, in spite of being somewhat shield away by her left seatmate.

Remind me of the time I viewed and rejected the lineup at an Korean massage joint. One was so enraged she took a punt at my ass as I turn to leave the premise. The days of Asian girls being demure and passive are over. Just make sure that if you married them, that a joint bank accound is at least in 6 figures.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418498]Who is bluffing and who is going to blink first. The pot is the 2012 elections.[/QUOTE]I suspect the Republican pussies will back down, even though they have a much stronger hand and they have the added benefit of being on the correct side of the issue.

Other than BHO's nearly $4T budget he submitted (I think it was back in April) which is nearly twice the expected federal receipts for FY2012, neither BHO nor the democrats have proposed anything. Why do republicans feel the need to negotiate against themselves? You make an offer, if the other side doesn't counter, walk away.

There is no scenario (none whatsoever) under which the US government will default on its debt in the near future. If the president, for political purposes, elects not to properly service the debt (preferring to fund Acorn or whatever) he will have committed an impeachable offense, for which he will be swiftly indicted. Any discussion of default is bullshit, pure and simple.

Why republicans have allowed him to pretend to control the high ground is beyond me. They (the republicans) are sitting on top of the high ground. Why would the give it away?

It seems my friend Esten and his opponents remind me of two bald men fighting over a comb. Obama and the Republicans only have their self interest in mind. To get re-elected, at the expenxe of their constituents. Why is it, we, the electorate, choose such fools? Hmm, should I move to BA when the republic fails?

MFM

Because there is so much air time, they have to sensationalize every issue. Most of these babbling idiots don't even believe what they themselves are saying, it's for the cash that they generate. Yet, these are the people that a majority of the voters get their information and opinions from.

As bad as the economy is, I am less fearful of the American economy than I am of the American culture.

Black Shirt I have to agree with you regarding the talking heads. Most have no idea what they are talking about but are only interested in spinning the latest catastrophe for their own gain al la the Anthony debacle.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the government for 'defaulting' on our sovereign debt, no if's, an's or but's about it. With sufficient funds coming in to pay the sovereign debt, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, military pay, unemployment and school loans, perhaps to save money we should stop paying the House and Senate, the President, all their appointees, czars, staffers et al. The EPA could work three days a week as well as most other government agencies including the federal courts. While we are at it, all the contractors who are behind in their projects don't get paid until they are on schedule and they eat any cost over runs!

I'd let the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security continue to function but cut off all payments to anyone in an upper supervisory position at those agencies – the policy wonks that don't do anything but screw with the troops doing the job. While we are at it we could stop paying everyone at TSA even though they would go into withdrawal not being able to shake down granny, small children and hot women!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418632]The 14th Amendment prohibits the government for 'defaulting' on our sovereign debt, no if's, an's or but's about it. With sufficient funds coming in to pay the sovereign debt, social security, Medicare / Medicaid, military pay, unemployment and school loans, perhaps to save money we should stop paying the House and Senate, the President, all their appointees, czars, staffers et al. The EPA could work three days a week as well as most other government agencies including the federal courts. While we are at it, all the contractors who are behind in their projects don't get paid until they are on schedule and they eat any cost over runs![/QUOTE]What the 14th Amendment clearly does not do is empower the president of the the US to issue debt. It is mind boggling that some of these idiots (media, Obama and Dems in congress) are suggesting that it does. This whole episode is BS. If we don't raise the debt limit, the government has to spend less money. They have no choice but to service the debt first. If the president chooses not to service the debt, he will swiftly be impeached. I say f-ck 'them, don't raise the limit. Start cutting in real time. Pay for the essentials and let the rest fall by the wayside.

In the past six years we have doubled the long term debt of the US from approximately $7T to $14T. What do we have to show for it? Exactly what programs funded by the additional $7T of debt can we not live without?

By the way, contrary to Esten and the other hopeless liberals herein, TARP and "Stimulus" are already built into the base line budget, therefore they are permanent enshrined in the CBO calculations. So if you cut $2T off of the CBO baseline, you've cut nothing. Federal government spending was out of control under Bush, so liberals should be fine with going back to 2007 spending levels.

The only people in America who oppose a balance budget act are the Democrats in congress.

Before I get started. A quick poll. Who thinks fat chicks give the best head? I'm in the fat chick fellatio camp. But I digress.

Once upon a time, when I had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, I used to carry a copy of the Constitution in my cargo pocket as sort of a reference. Over the past couple of days, a lot of hay has been made in the media about the 14th Ammendment and the POTUS' ability to raise our debt ceiling under that ammendment, without authorization from Congress. The relevant sections are #4 and #5:

Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, (hint: this is important) including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion (TREASON) , shall not be questioned. But neither the United States, or any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States (THE REPUBLIC) OR (this "OR" is pretty important too) any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5: (I love this one.) The CONGRESS shall have the power to enforce, by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, the provisions of this article.

Words in parenthesis were added by me for emphasis.

Way back on 13 June 1866, a lot of the former slave states were bitching about the fiscal hardship they endured from freeing their slaves (among other things). Section 4 of the 14th Ammendment told them to "Pound Sand", and that the Union would not honor any of their wartime debts. Section 4 also reiterated that public debt be authorized by law. By lawmakers. You know. Congress. Not the President. Violation of this section is ONE of the quicker routes to impeachment that POTUS could follow. Section 5 restates Congress' authority over the public debt.

Cheers,

BF.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 418647]What the 14th Amendment clearly does not do is empower the president of the the US to issue debt. It is mind boggling that some of these idiots (media, Obama and Dems in congress) are suggesting that it does. This whole episode is BS. If we don't raise the debt limit, the government has to spend less money. They have no choice but to service the debt first. If the president chooses not to service the debt, he will swiftly be impeached. I say f-ck 'them, don't raise the limit. Start cutting in real time. Pay for the essentials and let the rest fall by the wayside.

In the past six years we have doubled the long term debt of the US from approximately $7T to $14T. What do we have to show for it? Exactly what programs funded by the additional $7T of debt can we not live without?

By the way, contrary to Esten and the other hopeless liberals herein, TARP and "Stimulus" are already built into the base line budget, therefore they are permanent enshrined in the CBO calculations. So if you cut $2T off of the CBO baseline, you've cut nothing. Federal government spending was out of control under Bush, so liberals should be fine with going back to 2007 spending levels.

The only people in America who oppose a balance budget act are the Democrats in congress.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon;418648]Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, (hint: this is important)[/QUOTE]The only debt of the US Federal Government, that is authorized by law, comes out of the congress. Gee, that is important, except for the fact that the beltway republicans are willing to do nothing and give away the store to this reckless, malicious and malignant president, which only goes to show that despite what they say, very few of them are actually conservatives.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;418650]The only debt of the US Federal Government, that is authorized by law, comes out of the congress. Gee, that is important, except for the fact that the beltway republicans are willing to do nothing and give away the store to this reckless, malicious and malignant president, which only goes to show that despite what they say, very few of them are actually conservatives.[/QUOTE]Wild Walleye: "reckless, malicious and malignant" are kind adjectives when describing our current Potus. My point was that only the Congress, as dysfunctional as it may be, has the authority over the national purse, by law. It has abdicated this authority for nearly a century, and things are now coming to a head.

BF

The house is on fire, and the guys are arguing what kind of hoses they should use. How dysfunctional can you get? Even if we get out of this mess this time, we are still mired on the slippery slope

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon; 418651]Wild Walleye: "reckless, malicious and malignant" are kind adjectives when describing our current Potus. My point was that only the Congress, as dysfunctional as it may be, has the authority over the national purse, by law. It has abdicated this authority for nearly a century, and things are now coming to a head.

BF[/QUOTE]Sorry that I didn't make it clear. I was agreeing with you and attempting to highlight your excellent point.

It makes me want to vomit that this loser president pretended to be a constitutional scholar and yet he suggests that he could go it alone. What a joke.

Two quick points:

1. The US government is in no way headed toward a default on its debt. 'Failure' to raise the debt ceiling can't cause the US to default on its debts (in the current scenario).

At these rates (which are unsustainably low) , the income of the Federal government could support $100T of debt (I'm certainly not advocating that). The douche bags saying that are political hacks trying to score points and the barely-literate press repeating their drivel.

It would be better for all of us if they don't raise the debt limit. Let the "world end" in the terms of the Democrats. If they don't raise the debt limit, they have to actually match out flows to inflows. Why would that be bad for America? The government has more than enough incoming revenue to service the debt. After they service the debt, they can then decide what they want to pay for with what is left over. There is also sufficient income to pay for critical services and things like the military, social security and medicare / medicade. The Constitution says they have to pay the debt, therefore tehy have to pay it. What other federal expenditures are enshrined and guaranteed in the Constitution?

2. The potential downgrading of America's debt by rating agencies has virtually nothing to do with the debt-ceiling issue now being debated. Any downgrade would be due to the enormity of America's accumulated debt relative to its income. Almost all debt on this planet is in one way or another related to the rates on US treasury instruments. There is no other comparable issuer of debt on the planet. Any downgrade is much ado about nothing because the US will still be the only issuer capable of putting the "full faith and credit" of the USA behind its debt.

What the potential for a downgrade should tell anyone is that the US has a major spending problem. It is not a revenue problem. However, if you want more revenue, cut some taxes. If you want more people back to work, cut regulation and taxes.

What we have learned in 2, 056 years.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,

Public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be.

Tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should.

Be curtailed lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to.

Work, instead of living on public assistance."

- Cicero. 55 BC.

So, apparently nothing.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 418657]Sorry that I didn't make it clear. I was agreeing with you and attempting to highlight your excellent point.

It makes me want to vomit that this loser president pretended to be a constitutional scholar and yet he suggests that he could go it alone. What a joke.

Two quick points:

1. The US government is in no way headed toward a default on its debt. 'Failure' to raise the debt ceiling can't cause the US to default on its debts (in the current scenario).

At these rates (which are unsustainably low) , the income of the Federal government could support $100T of debt (I'm certainly not advocating that). The douche bags saying that are political hacks trying to score points and the barely-literate press repeating their drivel.

It would be better for all of us if they don't raise the debt limit. Let the "world end" in the terms of the Democrats. If they don't raise the debt limit, they have to actually match out flows to inflows. Why would that be bad for America? The government has more than enough incoming revenue to service the debt. After they service the debt, they can then decide what they want to pay for with what is left over. There is also sufficient income to pay for critical services and things like the military, social security and medicare / medicade. The Constitution says they have to pay the debt, therefore tehy have to pay it. What other federal expenditures are enshrined and guaranteed in the Constitution?

2. The potential downgrading of America's debt by rating agencies has virtually nothing to do with the debt-ceiling issue now being debated. Any downgrade would be due to the enormity of America's accumulated debt relative to its income. Almost all debt on this planet is in one way or another related to the rates on US treasury instruments. There is no other comparable issuer of debt on the planet. Any downgrade is much ado about nothing because the US will still be the only issuer capable of putting the "full faith and credit" of the USA behind its debt.

What the potential for a downgrade should tell anyone is that the US has a major spending problem. It is not a revenue problem. However, if you want more revenue, cut some taxes. If you want more people back to work, cut regulation and taxes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BlueFalcon; 418659]What we have learned in 2, 056 years.

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,

Public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be.

Tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should.

Be curtailed lest Rome becomes bankrupt. People must again learn to.

Work, instead of living on public assistance."

- Cicero. 55 BC.

So, apparently nothing.[/QUOTE]This "Boehner Bill" is pure bullsh*t. It cuts nothing, it has no teeth and while they may put lipstick on it, it's still a pig. The fix has been in all along. Boehner is a country club republican (albeit from modest beginnings) that wants to maintain the status quo. So he an McConnell and Reid have cooked up this pile of crap to give Boehner the appearance of being tough while in reality it just continues to perpetuate the Washington machine. The bill will be tabled in the Senate then they will gut it to be a 'tax and spend' liberal's wet dream and send it back to the House. They (media included) will say "it's the Boehner bill, it's a republican bill! How can you be against it?" If republicans bail and it doesn't get passed, they'll blame republicans. If they pass it, Obama, Reid and Pelosi continue to get what they want from compliant republicans who wouldn't know conservatism if it bit them on the ass.