Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

[red states rule]

Is anyone surprised by this? Whenever libs can't get their way they will find a way to ignore the LAW and the US CONSTITUTION

After all, with liberals the ends justify the means right?






On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt. But he noted, too, that the Constitutional debate on this question isn’t ripe enough yet for Obama to take an end run around Congress, even if Republicans refuse to increase the national borrowing limit.


I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.

“It’s certainly worth exploring,” Schumer said. “I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It’s probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn’t want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/01/here-we-go-schumer-says-dems-are-discussing-whether-wh-can-ignore-the-debt-ceiling/

[J.T]

Oh, fuck off. Where were you people when the Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush administration, including twice in the same year?

This after he inherited the closes thing to a workable budget seen in decades.

Oh, yeah, the same place you were when he passed socialized medicine with no way of paying for it (Medicare Part D)

And the same place you were when the Reps introduced the bills they now oppose because that nigger in the White [Man's] House supported the Republican's ideas- you know, like the individual mandate, for example.

[darin]

^^

www.hop.com

This isn't about raising the limit - it's about the president ignoring the limit and charging anyway.

Get off your self-righteous soapbox.

[Little-Acorn]

Interesting point. The leftists ignore any law they don't like, whether it's the 10th amendment, immigration laws, the commerce clause, or basic property rights. Why should the debt ceiling be any different?

[J.T]

Interesting point. The leftists ignore any law they don't like, whether it's the 10th amendment, immigration laws, the commerce clause, or basic property rights. Why should the debt ceiling be any different?
And the Right doesn't do the same with indefinite detentions, tax evasion, the same 10th amendment...?

[Little-Acorn]

Interesting point. The leftists ignore any law they don't like, whether it's the 10th amendment, immigration laws, the commerce clause, or basic property rights. Why should the debt ceiling be any different?

And they try to keep doing it by pretending others do it as much as they do.

Sad. But what else can you expect?

[red states rule]

and of course lets not forget what Sen Obama said on raising the debt ceiling in 2006

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

I know I know, I am taking his quote out of context

Or things are different now

Or we are in a "real" crisis unlike in 2006

Or I am a racist

ect, ect, ect

SAome people will always try to spin and defend for Obama no matter what he says or does

[red states rule]

and the liberal media are trying to convince the voters it is OK for Obama to ignore the law - for the good of the nation

Check out this crap from one of Obama's most loyal liberals




On its current course, the United States is four weeks away from defaulting on its debt for the first time in its history. If that happens, businesses will fail. Financial institutions will fail. Home values will decline. Mortgage rates will skyrocket. Spending and investment will all but disappear. Social Security checks will stop being mailed. Everything from military pay to food inspection will be compromised, if not fully cut off. The millions upon millions of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed will be joined by millions more.

Across the world, America’s second financial collapse in three years will drag down already fragile economies in Europe, Latin America and Asia, potentially creating a “worldwide depression,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described it. In short, we would be thrown back deep into economic turmoil — only this time with even fewer tools to crawl our way out.

In theory, this is unthinkable, and it will be remedied by reasonable political parties making reasonable concessions across the negotiating table. But Republicans have been negotiating in bad faith, unwilling to compromise even an inch on their extremist and absolutist positions. Some are no longer willing to come to the table at all.

With that backdrop, President Obama may find that there is only one course left to avoid a global economic calamity: Invoke Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” This constitutional option is one that the president alone may exercise.

If the Aug. 2 deadline arrives and no deal has been made, Obama could use a plain reading of that text to conclude — statutory debt ceiling or not — that he is constitutionally required to order the Treasury to continue paying America’s bills. In that sense, this is not just a constitutional option, it is a constitutional obligation, one even the Tea Party will have trouble denying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/invoke-the-14th--and-end-the-debt-standoff/2011/07/01/gHQAUif8yH_story.html

[red states rule]

Chris Matthews and his fellow liberals are launching a full assualt on anyone who opposes rasing the debt ceiling without spending cuts and tax increases

and of course "Bush did it" and taxes are too low

BTW, do you feel you are under taxed?


<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=F6T3FF13MKM8HL0R&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

[fj1200]

and the liberal media are trying to convince the voters it is OK for Obama to ignore the law - for the good of the nation

Check out this crap from one of Obama's most loyal liberals


That leaves the president with two choices: He can give in to unthinkable Republican demands or he can choose, instead, to exercise his constitutional authority, end the debt-ceiling standoff and craft a new budget deal, defined, finally, by shared sacrifice.

Oh brother.

[red states rule]

Oh brother.

The same as when you hear libs talk about "investments" they really mean more spending - when you hear libs talk about "shared sacrifice" they really mean higher taxes for successful people