Breaking: Obama To Address Nation Tonight. Will Bypass Congress & Invoke 14th Amendmt

[JakeStarkey]

Interestingly, you are dead wrong. The housing market crunch is the GOP. Increased interest rates will drive prices down further. The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.

If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You post what you believe, and so what, Dr. House. Not more than half dozen here listen to you for more than grins and chuckles. Exactly what I posted is what will happen. Little boys like you who still live with their mother are just darn silly.

Read up and gets yourself edumacated, housie.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Reagan, Obama, and Presidential Teflon

Nice article from June 2009.....



"The lesson from all this is pretty simple: there are limits to Teflon. At best, it gives some incumbents a cushion in their numbers, so that they do not suffer as much as others would"

Hmmmmmmmm......I wonder if the 2010 elections, there were a record number of House seats that flipped Republican, IIRC, were proof that Obama's Teflon is gone?

 

[saveliberty]

Interestingly, you are dead wrong. The housing market crunch is the GOP. Increased interest rates will drive prices down further. The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.

If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.

The housing crisis was the result of a Democratic drive to expand home ownership. Well documented fact Jake.

 

[edthecynic]

Interestingly, you are dead wrong. The housing market crunch is the GOP. Increased interest rates will drive prices down further. The American public in the polling is not supporting the Tea Party on this.

If you want Obama re-elected, keep going on like this.

The housing crisis was the result of a Democratic drive to expand home ownership. Well documented fact Jake.

That is pure CON$ervative bullshit, Bush is no Democrat. Well documented fact Slaveliberty.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only 1 of 5 Americans are buying the Tea Party nonsense, and that % will do down even further in the next few weeks.

 

[MaggieMae]

Boehner can't control the yay-hoos of the far right Tea Party in Congress.

If the country defaults, the GOP will have less than 1/3rd in each chamber in January 2013 with BHO as president.

The Dems will not pull what they did in 2009. They will ram a 100 days program through that will make FDR et al look like the Tea Party.

You guys don't have the votes in the country to back up putting America into a Depression. You will be politically destroyed.

The Tea Party (and several others) are strangely committed to the "pledge" of no new taxes to none other than someone who earns his living by intentionally stirring up trouble: Grover Norquist. They are so enamored with and entranced by his mantra that they actually believe this diverse country of over 311 million people, and whose national economy now depends on the other 600 billion people around the world, can function on the "promise" of free enterprise. Norquist's sole goal is to make it impossible to raise taxes for any reason, including to balance budgets. Ironically, however, he fueded recently with Senator Tom Coburn and several other Republican Senators who are wise to his absurdities, when they voted to eliminate $6 billion in ethanol subsidies to farmers.

Um, hey Grover: Where do you think that $6 billion came from? Coin crops? Plant a penny, harvest when silver dollars emerge?

I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.

And until there is a balanced budget amendment in place and ratified, that is one point I very much agreed with Speaker Boehner last night. Congress is not going to use any new taxes to balance anything. They haven't done that for more than fifty years now. They will use it to justify more money funneled to their constituencies because it sounds so noble and right to fuzzy mush headed people to do that.

I believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in greedy capitalists who, well, "capitalize" on America's promise to keep it free. Capitalism isn't perfect, and it breeds corruption just as elected officials can be corrupted by the capitalist lobbyists who are in it for only one thing: Themselves and their own pocketbooks, not caring a single bit about how many lives they might destroy in the process. If only we hadn't been seeing this in full action over the last five years, I too would have been touting the noble goals of free enterprise. But it's been badly abused, you must admit. I've said many many times that the only way to get the country back to some kind of fiscal responsibility is a genuine partnering of public and private sectors, which may be a painful process but otherwise, we're a country running amok. The government must have adequate regulations in place to avoid future tsunamis, and the private sector needs to step up to the plate and do their part to generate the business climate and create jobs that can make it happen, regardless of said regulations. It's always been that way, and up until recently, it has worked.

Example: A quip from THE WEEK, quoted from a story in the NYT recently.

"Despite the soft economy, high unemployment, and stagnant wages for most workers, top executives got huge raises last year. The average paycheck for top executives at 200 big companies in 2010 was $10.8 million, a 23% gain from 2009."


Apparently for some businesses, that's the modern definition of "free enterprise."

 

[MaggieMae]

I no more want unregulated capitalism, which destroys competititon, than I want communism, which destroys personal iniative.

The Balanced Budget amendment is a hoax, Foxfyre.

Rich Lowry, the very conservative editor of National Review, tells us why at The Balanced-Budget Amendment - By Rich Lowry - The Corner - National Review Online

I wouldn't exactly call it a "hoax," but it certainly could never work. There are any number of unforeseen circumstances that may strike the country which would immediately nullify any "balanced budget" attempt just by virtue of unanticipated costs. What if we have another hurricane like Katrina? Or two or three that strong in one season? With FEMA handicapped by a balanced budget limitation , cities, lives would be destroyed.

I still think the answer to excess waste resulting from unnecessary programs, antiquated programs still getting annual funding, agency duplications of responsibilities, etc., will go far to balancing a budget, but that would mean invoking a line-item veto and our esteemed USSC has ruled that unconstitutional. So how would even a bare-bones "balanced budget" ever get done? There would still be billions hidden in legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[MaggieMae]

And here's the proof of the insane hypocrisy, hutzpah, and self-serving leadership of our fearless President. He has nothing down on paper. Nothing that can be handed to the media with the bullet points of what the President proposes and is willing to support. Carney said he has spelled it out lots of times including last Friday night. (I listened to the President on Friday night and the President provided NO SPECIFICS.) The White House Press Corp. is finally calling him on it.

And it went by quickly but he actually said, "You can tell the American people that there is nothing to worry about." (You can't make this stuff up.)

The link here take you to the video of the actual exchange at the White House this morning:

Carney Gets Hit for Ten Minutes on The Obama Plan
July 26, 2011 2:34 P.M. By Daniel Foster
Or the lack thereof. After bobbing-and-weaving for nine minutes, Carney finally says what everybody knows: the president won’t put his plan on paper because he doesn’t want it to become “politically charged” before a compromise can be reached. In other words, you’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it:

Carney Gets Hit for Ten Minutes on The Obama Plan - By Daniel Foster - The Corner - National Review Online

The question is if there are significant savings to be had in defense, in medicare/social security fraud, etc. etc. etc., why haven't they already done that?

For one thing, entitlement programs like SS and Medicare are NOT ever considered in preparing an annual budget. Never. Those are separate issues that WILL BE eventually studied and other options (cuts) eventually debated in Washington. To believe that all of this can be stuffed into the issue of simply raising the debt ceiling to PAY FOR things we've already budgeted for is ridiculous. Throwing changes to entitlement programs out there was just an effort by Obama to stave off the wolves who incredibly think ALL of this MUST happen by August 2nd. I mean seriously?

He did propose his own bullet points, and apparently even Carney has a short memory. Although not expanded upon (yet), and remember that neither has Boehner's, here is what Obama proposed nearly four months ago when this all began:

Obama Proposes Cutting $4 Trillion From Deficit in 12 Years - Bloomberg

With today’s proposal, Obama is going beyond the fiscal 2012 budget he presented on Feb. 14, which forecast cutting the deficit by $1.1 trillion over a decade.

As with his budget, Obama called for ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which are set to expire in 2012. “I refuse to renew them again,” he said.
...
To achieve his new goals, the president is urging Congress to pass a “debt failsafe” that would trigger across-the-board spending cuts and tax changes if the debt-to-GDP ratio hasn’t stabilized by 2014, according to an administration fact sheet. The automatic cuts wouldn’t apply to entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare, and programs intended for low-income Americans.

Defense, Agriculture
Obama would target government spending, from the Pentagon to the Department of Agriculture. He proposes saving $400 billion in current and future defense spending and called for a “fundamental review” of U.S. military missions.
...
Republican Opposition
Signaling the political fight his plan faces, Republican congressional leaders said after getting briefed by the president that they won’t accept tax increases as part of a deficit-cutting plan.

The president “heard us loud and clear” on the tax issue, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio told reporters after the White House meeting. “If we are going to resolve our differences and do something meaningful, raising taxes will not be part of that.”

Most of the reductions proposed by Obama will be phased in to the second half of the 12-year timeframe, to avoid stifling the economic recovery, according to the White House.
The president borrowed some ideas from the Simpson-Bowles debt commission he created last year, drawing on the co- chairmen’s recommendation for a simpler, fairer tax code that lowers rates and increases revenue. He also adopted the recommendations on non-security discretionary spending, saving $770 billion by 2023.

‘Failsafe’ Trigger
Analysts said Obama’s proposal for a “failsafe” trigger was a positive move.

Stan Collender, managing director of Qorvis Communications and a former congressional budget aide, said the president’s approach attempts to overcome the limits of 1985 Gramm-Rudman- Hollings Act, which required automatic budget cuts if deficit targets weren’t reached.

Because those targets were based on budget projections, White House officials could avoid them by plugging in more- positive economic assumptions to make deficits seem smaller, he said.

A debt target is harder to fudge, he said, and that sends a positive message to the bond market.

 

[MaggieMae]

I truly and sincerely wish all those who do not believe in free enterprise would move to some other country more to their liking. I personally will NEVER support any other economic system because to do so would dismantle the very Constitution that has been the fundamental principle upon which the greatest nation the world has ever known was founded.

Please cite in the Constitution where ‘free enterprise’ is the mandated economic system. It must be in the same clause where the Constitution refers to ‘small government.’

And those who don’t ‘believe’ in free enterprise are welcome and entitled and have a right to remain in America, in spite of your wishes, and per the Constitution.

And until there is a balanced budget amendment in place and ratified, that is one point I very much agreed with Speaker Boehner last night. Congress is not going to use any new taxes to balance anything. They haven't done that for more than fifty years now. They will use it to justify more money funneled to their constituencies because it sounds so noble and right to fuzzy mush headed people to do that.

A ‘balanced budget’ amendment is a political contrivance, meaningless nonsense advocated by the lazy and the ignorant. If you’re unhappy with the actions of your representatives in Congress, compel them to do otherwise with your petition and your vote, do the necessary research and work to manifest the governance you advocate – don’t lay it off to an ill-conceived political scheme to the detriment of the Nation.

There is already an Amendment in place to compel Congress to balance the budget, one simply need not be too lazy or ignorant to use it:

Amendment 1: …or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Everything in the Constitution is designed to recognize the unalienable rights of the people to govern themselves, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unfettered by a monarch or king or dictator or socialist or totalitarian government. The purpose of the federal government was to secure those rights and then leave the people alone to form the society they wished to have.

To a leftist such a concept is gibberish as they look to government to have the power to create and provide the society they want.

To a constitutionalist or freedom loving person, it is truth as they know government with power enough to order society will use that power to further its own ambitions.

And yet the framers saw fit to establish separate government entities to oversee that those rights are not abused. Throughout, the Constitution advocates checks and balances, COMPROMISE. Again, something Grover Norquist calls "date rape."

 

[saveliberty]

You know, a balanced budget doesn't mean an emergency fund can't be established. Back in the 90's I helped establish a reserve fund for our city. It represents 15% of the annual budget.

 

[MaggieMae]

First, I notice all of you ignored Willow's suggestion, repeated several times in this thread, that everybody should actually listen to the video. This could be a historic event as it might be the first and last time that Willow will be defending this President.

To my fellow rightwingers, please cool the rhetoric about Obama threatening to evoke anything illegal in that speech. He didn't. All he said was that after dealing with Congress over this, he wished he could do it on his own. But he followed that comment immediately with a statement that such is not the way things get done.

In short, in that particular sequence of his speech, he said noting whatsoever to criticize.

What he will say tonight if that speech happens is anybody's guess. But as he has been steadily moving closer and closer to the GOP position on all of this, I am guessing that he will offer a suggestion at least most Republicans will come off looking lame if they criticize it. They're sooo close in the White House and House of Representatives. All that we have to do is table the issue of higher taxes on the rich for at least a little while and get the Senate to agree.

Like Obama, I wish so much I could be undisputed dictator for just a little while.

But that's not the way we get things done.

I think most of us are very tired of the grandstanding, the gaming, the so obvious political posturing with a major election cycle just over the horizon. Since it's now the following day and we all know what both Obama and Boehner had to say, my opinion is that nobody wants to hear any more ideological positioning from either camp. Just get busy and do something.

Genius....The framers set up the federal government to prevent the legislature and executive branches from operating unilaterally. The idea was to keep government from "just doing something".
The worst thing that could occur here is the very thing you suggested. That is "just get something done"....NO!!!!!
Spending needs to be slashed. That is that!

I agree. Just not at this particular moment in time. By "just do something," obviously I meant stop all the partisan ideological bickering and get down to work FIXING what needs to be FIXED, starting in September when they all return from their month long vacations after four months of the oh-so-tiring to their brain cells of repeating the same shit day after day.

 

[MaggieMae]

HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate. I want no forgeries I want the real thing.

The fact the above statement by Henry is so goofy is a good start as to why he is not a naturally born American citizen.

He must be on Phil Berg's payroll.

 

[MaggieMae]

The more important address came from Standard & Poors. They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating. Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt. This will further cause financial problems...for everyone. Its called inflation.

Which of course the Tea Party membership which is holding the whole thing hostage at this point doesn't get. That will translate into higher interest on personal loans, including credit cards, more bankruptcies, and even more people looking to the government for social umbrellas. Maybe they should take a brush up course in basic math:

 

[MaggieMae]

HenryBHough was not born in America, so I want him to post his birth certificate. I want no forgeries I want the real thing.

The fact the above statement by Henry is so goofy is a good start as to why he is not a naturally born American citizen.

A perfectly reasonable request. Were I to decide to run for President I'd immediately make a certified copy of my U.S. Birth Certificate available to all who would like to see. I do not, however, intend to run as did your annointed messiah. Surely since you'd like to see my birth certificate, in the absence of any intent to seek office, you must feel quite queasy about your BOY having none.

Oh, yes, since some sort of "goofy" factor rule proves, in what passes for your mind, that one is not a natural born U.S. native then I feel compelled to ask from what country you fled and ahead of what?

There's a whole topic with thousands of postings on this subject. It's called "Conspiracy Theories." I suggest you go there and play along with your friends and leave this particular room where no one is interested in some idiot derailing a more important subject.

 

[MaggieMae]

The more important address came from Standard & Poors. They say any plan that doesn't cut (that means less spending) at least $4T could result in a lower bond rating. Traditionally, that has meant higher interest charged on new debt. This will further cause financial problems...for everyone. Its called inflation.

This is the problem. Our fearless leaders have been so addicted to having unlimited access to the people's money and almost unlimited power to distribute or promise it, even if they have to borrow against 'unlimited' future revenues, in order to buy power, prestige, influence, and increase their own personal fortunes. It is heady stuff and they are terrified at the thought of giving it up.

So we have leadership that are behind closed doors--forget Obama's pledge to have the most transpaprent government in history--trying to concoct something that enough of the great unwashed will believe that they actually did something constructive. Boehner's plan has already been shot down by the CBO. It would have produced $1 billion - that's $1 billion with a 'b' - in debt reduction in 2012. Reid's plan and what Obama has proposed, as nearly as we can tell, would add significantly to the debt.

They are trying to tell us that raising the debt ceiling is not a license to spend more money. Well if they don't plan to spend more money, why does the debt ceiling need to be raised.

Unless they do deal with the spending end, the prediction from knowledgeable economists is that we will have our credit rating downgraded and that is not going to be good for any of us. Neither the President nor the Democrats nor the Republicans seem to have the will to deal with that, however.

It needs to be raised because an annual "debt ceiling" are projected costs, not actual outlay. As I said before, there are all sorts of unanticipated events that cause the annual funding of one agency or another to go over budget. That's why we're the only country in the world who even has a "debt ceiling" because it's an unattainable goal as you will see from past president's also needing to raise it, including Reagan and both Bushes.

 

[saveliberty]

Debt increases because of actual expenditures Maggie.

A debt ceiling needs to be adjusted because a long string of leaders failed to stop spending.

 

[MaggieMae]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

I don't see anything that allows Obama to issue new debt without congressional approval.

I am sure you don't. Here is the important part. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

No valid question exists whether he has the power do it. Whether he should is the question. The Congress members who vote against raising the limit are questioning the validity of the Amendment as well as the debt.

So Obama does not (I would not) and the next election sweeps 2/3d majorities of dems in both chambers and Obama. The first order of business will be to impeach the Republican Senators and Congressman who voted against the debt.

Remember that impeachment is a political weapon, and I suspect at that point the dems would use it like a hammer on an egg.

I question the wisdom of incurring those debts, not the validity of the debt once it's been incurred.

A valid question does exist whether he has the power to do what no President has done since the debt ceiling was created.

Obama presides over a default and 9.2% unemployment and you feel the Dems would get 2/3rds in both chambers? LOL!
That's funny!

So you would rather see another recession with rising interest rates because our credit would no longer be seen by other countries as being a good investment, resulting in more business failures, more people out of work, more people turning to welfare, all because of the "wisdom" behind borrowing that much money? If and when that happens, it won't be the President who gets blamed. It will be the Republicans who believed their "wisdom" would save the economy, when it is guaranteed to only get worse.

A final note: Time to end the blame game, folks. BOTH parties have been responsible for rising debt for the last 30 years and beyond. It's a good thing that this has all finally come front/center because I do believe that the spending/revenue problem has met its Waterloo and there WILL be workable solutions in the very near future.

 

[MaggieMae]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

I don't see anything that allows Obama to issue new debt without congressional approval.

I am sure you don't. Here is the important part. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

No valid question exists whether he has the power do it. Whether he should is the question. The Congress members who vote against raising the limit are questioning the validity of the Amendment as well as the debt.

So Obama does not (I would not) and the next election sweeps 2/3d majorities of dems in both chambers and Obama. The first order of business will be to impeach the Republican Senators and Congressman who voted against the debt.

Remember that impeachment is a political weapon, and I suspect at that point the dems would use it like a hammer on an egg.

"So Obama does not (I would not) and the next election sweeps 2/3d majorities of dems in both chambers and Obama"

Republicans hold 47 Senate seats.
Only 10 of which are up in 2012.
The Dems cannot get 2/3rds, even if you use Obama math.

The Republicans could take 20 of the 23 Dem seats to get 2/3rds.

The Senate isn't loaded up with Tea Partiers. Most of those Republicans actually have some brains.

 

[MaggieMae]

Check your figures for all three years before you go post crazy. You don't want to be caught out. If the unemployment goes under 7.5% year from now, Obama gets re-elected. If the Tea Party blow the jobs market apart with default and unemployment skyrockets, Obama gets re-elected.

You need to think before you write.

That's really asking a lot.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are delusional, as Our Lord does know, and will have mercy on you.

It's so cute when a liberal calls upon a stranger.

You are the one who is delusional if you believe the Tea Party defaults the debt. Watch and see.

If I were truly an evil person, I would wish that they would allow a default, then we'd see all hell break loose and watch as they sat around wondering how it happened.