McConnell Offers 3-Stage ’Last Choice’ Debt Option

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. Though they are effectively doing their best to avoid voting anyway with this proposal.

All you're trying to do though is deflect because you do not have a good argument to refute what I said.

that's fuckin funny,, when the demonRats fled Wisonsin to avoid the vote they were fraking heroes..

They fled to block a law that would strip workers of their Constitutionally protected rights. Certainly you can see the difference here.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. If there is the federal government is actually violating it by denying those rights to federal employees.

 

[Sallow]

that's fuckin funny,, when the demonRats fled Wisonsin to avoid the vote they were fraking heroes..

They fled to block a law that would strip workers of their Constitutionally protected rights. Certainly you can see the difference here.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. If there is the federal government is actually violating it by denying those rights to federal employees.

Sure there is.

It the same right that allows corporations to lobby the government.

You really are ignorant of the Constitution aren't ya?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts, which is more than the GOP is offering up and he alienated his own party by offering up entitlement cuts. Maybe it was a bluff but still the GOP won't budge to call his bluff.
I can see Obama as a one-termer but I also see the GOP losing their majority in the House too. People are not going to put up with this gamesmanship come November, 2012. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the business world experiences what they predict they will experience, the GOP could lose their biggest allies.
All of this just because of narrow-minded partisanship by both parties and party over country. Egads,, what a bunch of losers!

Not saying you're wrong, but I find it hard to imagine that the Repubs would lose their House majority in the same election Pres. Obama gets defeated.

I definitely see it as a possibility. The voters voted in 2010 to get new people into office so that something could actually get accomplished. Nothing is getting accomplished, and I could see the voters lashing out at everyone in the next election.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama offered 4 trillion in cuts, which is more than the GOP is offering up and he alienated his own party by offering up entitlement cuts. Maybe it was a bluff but still the GOP won't budge to call his bluff.
I can see Obama as a one-termer but I also see the GOP losing their majority in the House too. People are not going to put up with this gamesmanship come November, 2012. If the debt ceiling isn't raised and the business world experiences what they predict they will experience, the GOP could lose their biggest allies.
All of this just because of narrow-minded partisanship by both parties and party over country. Egads,, what a bunch of losers!

He did not offer $4 trillion in cuts, he threw out the number $4 trillion to make it look like he was serious.

You fell for it, as usual.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

McConnell Offers 3-Stage





I would hope everyone can see through McConnell's plan and see his true intentions are just to play politics in order to make sure his plan of Obama being a one term President comes true. Despicable and irresponsible.

According to the bolded, above, the debt-ceiling increase would occur regardless of whether spending cuts were actually enacted.

Why does Obama and the Dems have such an aversion to cutting spending?

Maybe because it puts the sacrifice on those who can afford it the least?

He can cut anything he wants, including the defense budget. If it hurts the people who can't afford it they will know who to blame.

 

[Intense]

As long as there are still checks in the check book we can spend as much as we feel like, right? The balance does not really matter???
If we run out of checks, we can just print up more? That is what you are arguing. If a Business spent that way, or you and I, we would soon be in Federal Prison.

Why should the Government be allowed to do what is a crime for the rest of us???

You seem to demonize any attempt to correct course, which seems silly considering that the proposals at best reduce the rate of Government Growth, and do little or nothing to pay off Interest or Principle. It seems more every effort does more to compound the problem and lead us closer to destruction, almost deliberate, the way I see it. What is the offense??? Liberty, Independence, Choice, Private Property, Individual Conscience, Witness and Voice, For which of these do you want to bring us all down with you?

Oh hooray! You set up and knocked down your own strawman!

Reality check: I never said we shouldn't have spending cuts.

Now, do you actually intend on commenting on what the GOP is doing? Or are you just going to keep trying to attack me?

My first post in the Thread Sally. Calm down. My comment on what the GOP is doing, is that it it not even enough for a good start. There is wisdom in learning to live within one's means. Actually, there is no substitute for it. Repeating failed policies and expanding them is not the answer. It would seem the first casualty of Hive Think Mentality is Personal Responsibility and Accountability. An incompetent spending more than he brings in, an incompetent over paying for useless services and goods, compounds the problem the longer the practice continues, it does nothing to repair the damage already done. Your answer of more of the same does anything but inspire.

 

[Dot Com]

This way the Repubs will get to hold more "show-votes" that have no effect

 

[Trajan]

They'd be heroes if they ran away to Canada to AVOID the vote. Right?

Nope. Though they are effectively doing their best to avoid voting anyway with this proposal.

All you're trying to do though is deflect because you do not have a good argument to refute what I said.

As long as there are still checks in the check book we can spend as much as we feel like, right? The balance does not really matter???
If we run out of checks, we can just print up more? That is what you are arguing. If a Business spent that way, or you and I, we would soon be in Federal Prison.

Why should the Government be allowed to do what is a crime for the rest of us???

You seem to demonize any attempt to correct course, which seems silly considering that the proposals at best reduce the rate of Government Growth, and do little or nothing to pay off Interest or Principle. It seems more every effort does more to compound the problem and lead us closer to destruction, almost deliberate, the way I see it. What is the offense??? Liberty, Independence, Choice, Private Property, Individual Conscience, Witness and Voice, For which of these do you want to bring us all down with you?

actually...yes

Social Security is safe in a federal shutdown
By Charles Riley, staff reporterFebruary 24, 2011: 7:05 AM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- What happens to Social Security if the government shuts down?

"People don't get their Social Security checks." That was President Obama at a press conference last week.

And this is Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, in a statement on Tuesday: "A shutdown could ... mean no Social Security checks for seniors."

The Democrats are saber rattling, hoping to portray Republicans as irresponsible. And the claim has been repeated by other top Democrats.

Here's the rub: It doesn't appear to be true.

During the last major shutdown, which lasted about a month starting in late 1995, the Social Security Administration mailed checks throughout the crisis, and a close reading of established law makes clear the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

"I am absolutely sure the checks would be sent out," said John F. Cooney, a partner at law firm Venable who designed shutdown plans for the government while employed at the Office of Management and Budget.

Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, backed that view, saying claims that benefits won't be paid are "not true."

The legal case is pretty clear. In 1995, President Clinton's lawyers in the Department of Justice laid out how federal agencies should operate if Congress failed to appropriate funds.
Running the government on 8¢

At the time, Clinton's lawyers pointed out that Social Security checks could be mailed during a shutdown, because the program doesn't need Congress to authorize funds for it each year. Instead, Social Security benefits are paid from the program's trust fund.

"The shutdown refers to discretionary spending, and Social Security is mandatory spending. It doesn't need an appropriations bill to go forward," Reischauer said.

And because Social Security benefits -- which go to roughly 60 million Americans -- are paid out of the trust fund, the agency has the implied legal authority to keep paying staffers who administer them.

That's exactly what happened in 1995-1996. While some Social Security Administration employees were sent home, the agency's official written history notes that essential staff stayed on to make sure benefits were paid.

more at-

Federal shutdown: Social Security checks won't stop - Feb. 23, 2011

hat tip Liablility

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The gop is doing their job.

So I guess ill go look in that other thread to see your cries about Obama playing politics with seniors. I look forward to seeing you play both sides fairly since your not a partisan hack like me.

Did you bother to read the story? The GOP is playing politics. They're not doing their job, that's the problem.

But no, you'll just keep attacking Obama thinking that it's all his fault alone.

So what? Why do you only complain about one side and the way they play politics when both sides do it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

McConnell is willing to abdicate his Constitutional responsiblity? Is that even legal?

In theory everything Congress does is Constitutional, until such time as a Federal court says otherwise.

At the same time, Republicans wouldn’t have to agree to tax increases. The proposal would force Democrats to cast multiple votes to raise the debt ceiling before the next election, while giving Republicans the chance to vote against it without risking a default.

Constitutional or not, the GOP is playing a shameful shell game in the hope they can fool the American people.

It won’t work.

Maybe because it puts the sacrifice on those who can afford it the least?

Correct.

If you think it will not work why worry? You should encourage them, write Obama to have hims sign on, and laugh when it blows up in the faces of the idiots.

The fact that you are bitching about it tells me you actually are worried about how bad this will make Obama look.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They fled to block a law that would strip workers of their Constitutionally protected rights. Certainly you can see the difference here.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining. If there is the federal government is actually violating it by denying those rights to federal employees.

Sure there is.

It the same right that allows corporations to lobby the government.

You really are ignorant of the Constitution aren't ya?

Not as much as you, which is not a very high standard.

Why don't federal employees have collective bargaining rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. Though they are effectively doing their best to avoid voting anyway with this proposal.

All you're trying to do though is deflect because you do not have a good argument to refute what I said.

As long as there are still checks in the check book we can spend as much as we feel like, right? The balance does not really matter???
If we run out of checks, we can just print up more? That is what you are arguing. If a Business spent that way, or you and I, we would soon be in Federal Prison.

Why should the Government be allowed to do what is a crime for the rest of us???

You seem to demonize any attempt to correct course, which seems silly considering that the proposals at best reduce the rate of Government Growth, and do little or nothing to pay off Interest or Principle. It seems more every effort does more to compound the problem and lead us closer to destruction, almost deliberate, the way I see it. What is the offense??? Liberty, Independence, Choice, Private Property, Individual Conscience, Witness and Voice, For which of these do you want to bring us all down with you?

actually...yes

Social Security is safe in a federal shutdown
By Charles Riley, staff reporterFebruary 24, 2011: 7:05 AM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- What happens to Social Security if the government shuts down?

"People don't get their Social Security checks." That was President Obama at a press conference last week.

And this is Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, in a statement on Tuesday: "A shutdown could ... mean no Social Security checks for seniors."

The Democrats are saber rattling, hoping to portray Republicans as irresponsible. And the claim has been repeated by other top Democrats.

Here's the rub: It doesn't appear to be true.

During the last major shutdown, which lasted about a month starting in late 1995, the Social Security Administration mailed checks throughout the crisis, and a close reading of established law makes clear the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

"I am absolutely sure the checks would be sent out," said John F. Cooney, a partner at law firm Venable who designed shutdown plans for the government while employed at the Office of Management and Budget.

Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, backed that view, saying claims that benefits won't be paid are "not true."

The legal case is pretty clear. In 1995, President Clinton's lawyers in the Department of Justice laid out how federal agencies should operate if Congress failed to appropriate funds.
Running the government on 8¢

At the time, Clinton's lawyers pointed out that Social Security checks could be mailed during a shutdown, because the program doesn't need Congress to authorize funds for it each year. Instead, Social Security benefits are paid from the program's trust fund.

"The shutdown refers to discretionary spending, and Social Security is mandatory spending. It doesn't need an appropriations bill to go forward," Reischauer said.

And because Social Security benefits -- which go to roughly 60 million Americans -- are paid out of the trust fund, the agency has the implied legal authority to keep paying staffers who administer them.

That's exactly what happened in 1995-1996. While some Social Security Administration employees were sent home, the agency's official written history notes that essential staff stayed on to make sure benefits were paid.

more at-

Federal shutdown: Social Security checks won't stop - Feb. 23, 2011

hat tip Liablility

Are you trying to confuse the issue with facts again?

 

[Modbert]

actually...yes

Better hope the checks don't bounce due to lack of money.

 

[shintao]

They'd be heroes if they ran away to Canada to AVOID the vote. Right?

Nope. Though they are effectively doing their best to avoid voting anyway with this proposal.

All you're trying to do though is deflect because you do not have a good argument to refute what I said.

that's fuckin funny,, when the demonRats fled Wisonsin to avoid the vote they were fraking heroes..

I would make them all heros Willow if they would just go home and stay there, so the will of the people can be done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

actually...yes

Better hope the checks don't bounce due to lack of money.

I thought the Social Security trust fund was fully funded.

 

[Trajan]

actually...yes

Better hope the checks don't bounce due to lack of money.

from the link-

At the time, Clinton's lawyers pointed out that Social Security checks could be mailed during a shutdown, because the program doesn't need Congress to authorize funds for it each year. Instead, Social Security benefits are paid from the program's trust fund.

 

[Toro]

McConnell Offers 3-Stage

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a “last choice option” to avoid a default on U.S. debt obligations that effectively would grant President Barack Obama power to unilaterally raise the debt limit in installments.

McConnell’s plan would let the president raise the limit in three stages unless Congress disapproves by a two-thirds majority, while Obama would also be required to propose offsetting spending cuts. The spending reductions would be advisory, and the debt-ceiling increase would occur regardless of whether lawmakers enact the cuts, McConnell said.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said the plan would allow Obama to raise the debt limit while putting the onus on him and congressional Democrats to cut spending.

At the same time, Republicans wouldn’t have to agree to tax increases. The proposal would force Democrats to cast multiple votes to raise the debt ceiling before the next election, while giving Republicans the chance to vote against it without risking a default.

I would hope everyone can see through McConnell's plan and see his true intentions are just to play politics in order to make sure his plan of Obama being a one term President comes true. Despicable and irresponsible.

So he is playing politics like Obama did this morning when he said seniors may not get their checks?

I dont see the thread you made about that partisan play anywhere on the forum what gives? Maybe it is you that is playing partisan politics?

Seniors might not get their checks. That's the risk you are taking.

Raise the debt ceiling and this all goes away.

 

[Trajan]

actually...yes

Better hope the checks don't bounce due to lack of money.

I thought the Social Security trust fund was fully funded.

godawg it hoss you spooked the horse....

 

[Toro]

actually...yes

Better hope the checks don't bounce due to lack of money.

from the link-

At the time, Clinton's lawyers pointed out that Social Security checks could be mailed during a shutdown, because the program doesn't need Congress to authorize funds for it each year. Instead, Social Security benefits are paid from the program's trust fund.

There are no marketable assets to sell in the trust fund. They can't raise cash.

Cash flows are lumpy.

on Aug. 3, we project that the government will have about $12 billion in receipts and $32 billion in committed payments, including a $23 billion Social Security payment.

Opinion: Real implications of debt debate - Jerome H. Powell - POLITICO.com

Not enough money for when that day arrives.

Will there be enough for when the seniors cash the checks? I don't know. Nobody does.

 

[Modbert]

Will there be enough for when the seniors cash the checks? I don't know. Nobody does.

I know I wouldn't be willing to cross my fingers and hope for the best.