Onnidan Fan Forum

Discussion => Politics => Topic started by: Bison66 on July 08, 2011, 01:33:22 PM

Title: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 08, 2011, 01:33:22 PM
WHAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE REALLY SAID
Quote
....In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-our-declaration-really-said/2011/07/02/AGugyvwH_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

AND

OBAMA CALLS THE GOP BLUFF
Quote
...Every independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel that has looked at the deficit problem has reached the same conclusion: The gap between spending and revenue is much too big to be closed by budget cuts alone. With fervent conviction but zero evidence, Tea Party Republicans believe otherwise — and Establishment Republicans, who know better, are afraid to contradict them.

The difficult work of putting the federal government on sound fiscal footing can’t begin as long as a majority in the House rejects simple arithmetic on ideological grounds.

“I’ve met with the leaders multiple times,” Obama said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “At a certain point, they need to do their job.” The job he means is welcoming fantasy-loving Republicans to the real world, and it has to be done.

The stakes are perilously high, but Obama does have a doomsday option: If all else fails, he can assert that a section of the 14th Amendment — “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned” — makes the debt limit unconstitutional and instructs him to take any measures necessary to avoid default.

Maybe that’s why, in this stare-down, the president doesn’t seem inclined to blink.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-calls-the-gops-bluff/2011/07/02/gHQAd1hByH_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Strike79 on July 08, 2011, 03:22:04 PM
...........uhhhh, sir, forgive me, but I am confused.

Kindly explain the "nexus" between the analysis of a portion of the Declaration of Independence that you posted, and, the excerpted opinion on the debt ceiling debate.

What point are you trying to make with these two analyses?
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: soflorattler on July 08, 2011, 06:05:14 PM
B66, I may be wrong, but in your post, are you asserting that- Although the drafters of the "Declaration" documents intended that there be no one (king) holding the absolute power of the purse, except when all options have been exhausted to keep the republic solvent, the president is then free to exercise that option (like a king) to "...take any measures necessary to avoid default..." for the good of the republic and its inhabitants? ???
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 08, 2011, 06:17:53 PM
Strike, My Man, I'd be delighted.

The Tea Party, as the first piece points out, takes its name (and the self-proclaimed meaning of its "acronym", Taxed Enough Already) from a protest NOT about taxes, but about legitimacy of rule; NOT about too much govt and NOT about too many laws, but about representative democracy.

They, like Palin (Revere) and Bachmann (Founders "ending" slavery) especially, have tried to invoke the names, the memories, beliefs and ideologies of the Founders OFTEN while ignoring those aspects which do not fit neatly into their pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda.

So, during a time when tax rates are amongst the lowest they have been AND with proof positive that economic growth has been best with slightly higher tax rates (Clinton years) on upper income earners and proof positive that tax cuts for the rich have NOT stimulated economic growth (a la Bush43), Tea Party folks are, in the name of the Founders, continuing an assault on the middle class and the poor.

Consequently, Tea Party and other Repub Conservatives are threatening not to just shut the govt down, but in the context of the debt limit debate, to undermine the full faith and credit of the US govt and thereby sabotage the weak recovery in their narrow minded and self-centered strategy to defeat Pres Obama at any and all costs - to the American people.
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Cats4ever on July 08, 2011, 06:43:22 PM
WHAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE REALLY SAID
Quote
....In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.

The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Their second grievance reinforced the first, accusing the king of having “forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.” Again, our forebears wanted to enact laws; they were not anti-government zealots.

Abuses three through nine also referred in some way to how laws were passed or justice was administered. The document doesn’t really get to anything that looks like Big Government oppression (“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance”) until grievance No. 10......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-our-declaration-really-said/2011/07/02/AGugyvwH_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

AND

OBAMA CALLS THE GOP BLUFF
Quote
...Every independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel that has looked at the deficit problem has reached the same conclusion: The gap between spending and revenue is much too big to be closed by budget cuts alone. With fervent conviction but zero evidence, Tea Party Republicans believe otherwise — and Establishment Republicans, who know better, are afraid to contradict them.

The difficult work of putting the federal government on sound fiscal footing can’t begin as long as a majority in the House rejects simple arithmetic on ideological grounds.

“I’ve met with the leaders multiple times,” Obama said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “At a certain point, they need to do their job.” The job he means is welcoming fantasy-loving Republicans to the real world, and it has to be done.

The stakes are perilously high, but Obama does have a doomsday option: If all else fails, he can assert that a section of the 14th Amendment — “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned” — makes the debt limit unconstitutional and instructs him to take any measures necessary to avoid default.

Maybe that’s why, in this stare-down, the president doesn’t seem inclined to blink.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-calls-the-gops-bluff/2011/07/02/gHQAd1hByH_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend
O0
B66, I was thinking along these lines about the common good which we as a nation has forgotten over the past 30 years. We seem to be a nation that has become selfish in our action when it comes to taxes. Compared to generations past, we are the me generation who only thing about how does this benefit me instead of looking to see how it might benefit the nation. I think JFK said it best, when he stated , ask not what your country can do for you, but what can you do for your country.

In the State of Georgia, we are in the midst of battle concerning much needed funding for transportation project that could reshape Georgia and ensure that we are able to provide jobs and opportunities for the citizens. We have had federal funding since the 90s for rail from Atlanta to Macon that would have been of great benefit to the whole state, but we have a several shortsighted individual in Atlanta that believe Georgia has nothing to offer outside of Atlanta.  However, the people of Macon have raised the money and built a terminal for the rail.  The problem was the state did not have the funding in place to match the federal dollars so the money was idle. There was a plan  to have a statewide one cent increase to raise money for rail throughout the state; however, after those idiots in the State Capitol got involved, it became a regional thing  because why should a person in South GA pay taxes to build something in Atlanta.   Now people do not want to fund something in the next county. :o

Now what did I bring this up because we as a nation find ourselves in the same situation.  People claim that the taxes raised should be spent in their states. We have become a bunch of selfish individual that refuse to see the importance of support the common good. People need to see the federal gov't like an  security investment fund where we pay our taxes so we can improve our nation so that it benefit all citizens not just a few.  Also, we have an investment in case we have national disaster. When the next hurricane hit cities, the feds should say see your state rep to solve that problem. It is ironic that people complain about taxes, but when something major happens, they look for the feds to solve the problem.
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 08, 2011, 06:45:22 PM
No, soflo, I wasn't going there.  I'm not familiar enough with the issues related to the claim that the President can do that.
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Cats4ever on July 08, 2011, 06:47:30 PM
Strike, My Man, I'd be delighted.

The Tea Party, as the first piece points out, takes its name (and the self-proclaimed meaning of its "acronym", Taxed Enough Already) from a protest NOT about taxes, but about legitimacy of rule; NOT about too much govt and NOT about too many laws, but about representative democracy.

They, like Palin (Revere) and Bachmann (Founders "ending" slavery) especially, have tried to invoke the names, the memories, beliefs and ideologies of the Founders OFTEN while ignoring those aspects which do not fit neatly into their pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda.

So, during a time when tax rates are amongst the lowest they have been AND with proof positive that economic growth has been best with slightly higher tax rates (Clinton years) on upper income earners and proof positive that tax cuts for the rich have NOT stimulated economic growth (a la Bush43), Tea Party folks are, in the name of the Founders, continuing an assault on the middle class and the poor.

Consequently, Tea Party and other Repub Conservatives are threatening not to just shut the govt down, but in the context of the debt limit debate, to undermine the full faith and credit of the US govt and thereby sabotage the weak recovery in their narrow minded and self-centered strategy to defeat Pres Obama at any and all costs - to the American people.
O0

Thank you sir for breaking it down about the common good which this country was founded on.
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: soflorattler on July 08, 2011, 08:08:31 PM
No, soflo, I wasn't going there.  I'm not familiar enough with the issues related to the claim that the President can do that.
O0

Although there are opposing schools of thought on this, the reason I posted that is this:

14th Amendment Option May Be Legit, Says Leading Senate Republican (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/frank-dismisses-14th-amendment-option_n_892492.html)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that the Constitution may trump the debt ceiling, allowing the administration a way out of the default impasse.

Negotiators are considering gutting the social safety net in exchange for a vote to lift the debt ceiling. Grassley, in a conference call with local reporters, said that there may be another way out.

"There's one thing that hasn't been talked about yet, and I haven't checked on the constitutionality of it -- and I read the Constitution, but I don't remember reading this -- but in the 14th amendment, there's something that says something about the debt of the United States government shall be honored," Grassley said, according to a recording of the call. "The 14th Amendment includes a public debt clause that insists the obligations of the government 'shall not be questioned.'"

"So people are looking at the fact that maybe the debt ceiling bill that Congress presumably has to pass for the government to borrow more maybe is contrary to that constitutional provision, and that the administration may take out [loans] on their own -- just to borrow money -- and say that they can ignore the law," he said.

Grassley said that he was personally supportive of the debt ceiling, because it focuses attention on spending, but that if its existence was unconstitutional, there was nothing he or his colleagues could do. "I think it's a discipline that Congress uses effectively from time to time, maybe not to cut down on the amount of spending but to have a refresher course," he said. "It's a good discipline, so it bothers me if the Constitution provision would trump it, but that would be up to the courts to say. But who's going to argue against the Constitution? It's the basis of our government; it's the law of our land, and everybody has to abide by it."

"The Constitution trumps the law, obviously," he said.

Some House Republicans, meanwhile, are threatening to impeach the president if he goes the 14th Amendment route.

Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) argued Thursday that the 14th Amendment does forbid default, but merely requires the Treasury Secretary to pay debt service obligations, not all debts.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is mistaken," Lee said. "Instead of saying what Mr. Geithner has insisted that it says, what it actually says is that the secretary of the Treasury lacks the authority -- the executive branch lacks the authority -- to disregard outstanding financial obligations, such that a default would be unconstitutional ... That would mean that under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, the Treasury Secretary has to make sure that the debts are paid first. He lacks the discretion, under Section 4, to withhold those funds and send them elsewhere because he has to honor the debt obligations of the United States."

The Treasury Department has repeatedly said such a solution is unworkable and that there won't be enough money coming in to cover the debts. And picking and choosing which debts to pay would be similar to implementing a line-item veto, which has itself been ruled unconstitutional.

Earlier Thursday, Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was an invited guest at a Democratic hearing called to discuss the debt ceiling. Bartlett has been an outspoken proponent of invoking the Constitution to end the impasse.

In a testy exchange with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Bartlett and the former Financial Services Committee chairman tangled over whether President Obama could choose to simply ignore the debt ceiling.

Frank said that he could not, arguing, "I think that for the president to announce that the government has to ignore the debt limit would be a terrible mistake and it would cause a great crisis in our democracy."

Moreover, he said, were Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment, the Tea Party Republicans who are refusing to vote to raise the debt limit would not face any consequences for their obstruction. Those lawmakers, Frank said, are behaving with "total irresponsibility."

Barlett, in response, said that no course of action post-default would be a good, legally sound option.

"The language says 'the debt of the United States shall not be questioned' -- that is a much broader statement [than others imply it is]," Bartlett said. "You have a situation where the president must violate the law; the question is which law?"

The administration would be acting illegally if it were forced to choose what obligations to pay, Barlett explained, because the treasury does not have the option to prioritize between debts and various appropriations that Congress has already approved. Yet to invoke the 14th Amendment would violate the law of the debt ceiling.

Frank maintained that the latter move would have drastic political consequences, although he pointed out that it would likely placate the "anti-debt people."

"The anger in the country, the political bitterness and the vitriol, would be amplified enormously and you'd let people off the hook for their irresponsibility," Frank said.

Bartlett, who advised both Reagan and Bush on economic policy, said he no longer identified with the Republican Party, which he said was struggling in the grip of the increasingly powerful Tea Party.

"I honestly think the Republicans have [been gripped] by insanity, and the people who have known this, have kept their mouths shut for years," Bartlett said, adding that he doubted there were any "leaders" left in Congress who could articulate "traditional, sensible, conservative Republican policy."

Bartlett also knocked down the Tea Party-supported idea of a balanced budget amendment, saying that would put the no-tax hike pledge backed by Grover Norquist into law and take important economic tools away from the government.

Toward the end of the hearing, Barlett said that should Congress fail to reach an agreement by Aug. 2, the president would have to revisit the idea of invoking the 14th Amendment, arguing that since so much of the nation's debt is owed to other countries, the debt limit would become a national security issue.

"I certainly would not advise the president to act until the last possible moment," Bartlett said.

==========================================

A Constitutional crisis in the making....
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 08, 2011, 08:09:48 PM
My pleasure, Cats.

And THANK YOU for providing a specific local/state example of the point you were making.
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: soflorattler on July 08, 2011, 08:25:36 PM
What's really going to be interesting is, a bunch of political hacks going up against a constitutional scholar...
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Cats4ever on July 08, 2011, 09:40:48 PM
What's really going to be interesting is, a bunch of political hacks going up against a constitutional scholar...
I think you just played a trump card with that post because it nails the case close. The USA debt must be honored and the debt of USA must not be questioned which goes back to the providing for the general welfare.  In other words, the President can do what he needs to do to ensure that this country stay free and the people are taking care of. I find it so ironic that the party that swear they breathe and die by the constitution are the one that do not want to enforce it.
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Cats4ever on July 08, 2011, 09:43:58 PM
So, the GOP is dead wrong when they started this tax cut foolishness.
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: iceman4221 on July 09, 2011, 09:34:32 AM
What's really going to be interesting is, a bunch of political hacks going up against a constitutional scholar...

Exactly, these idiots never expect this at all - what a riot...
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: iceman4221 on July 09, 2011, 09:35:21 AM
Strike, My Man, I'd be delighted.

The Tea Party, as the first piece points out, takes its name (and the self-proclaimed meaning of its "acronym", Taxed Enough Already) from a protest NOT about taxes, but about legitimacy of rule; NOT about too much govt and NOT about too many laws, but about representative democracy.

They, like Palin (Revere) and Bachmann (Founders "ending" slavery) especially, have tried to invoke the names, the memories, beliefs and ideologies of the Founders OFTEN while ignoring those aspects which do not fit neatly into their pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-middle class agenda.

So, during a time when tax rates are amongst the lowest they have been AND with proof positive that economic growth has been best with slightly higher tax rates (Clinton years) on upper income earners and proof positive that tax cuts for the rich have NOT stimulated economic growth (a la Bush43), Tea Party folks are, in the name of the Founders, continuing an assault on the middle class and the poor.

Consequently, Tea Party and other Repub Conservatives are threatening not to just shut the govt down, but in the context of the debt limit debate, to undermine the full faith and credit of the US govt and thereby sabotage the weak recovery in their narrow minded and self-centered strategy to defeat Pres Obama at any and all costs - to the American people.
O0


 :clap: :clap: :bow: :bow: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: iceman4221 on July 09, 2011, 09:51:21 AM
@ Cats4ever these "Taxed Enough Already" Party idiots do not have a clue...  When natural disasters, terrorism, or the cyclical economic conditions renders the inevitable recession, I bet most of these clowns hide the TEA Party accoutrements and beg for federal assistance - they seem to think they can have it both ways - NOT!!!  :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:

The reality is, if you want minimal taxes, the government already has that ineffect for entreprenuers and all you need to do is become a land lord of residential or commercial property to effectuate a zero tax life style whether you are a wage earner (employed) or an income earner(self employed) - ie just have enough depreciation of your properties own to wipe out all wages or income earned... 

This is not rocket science, its just a simple wealth building tactic that has been used for decades...  :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 09, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
SoFlo,

Thank you!

RE:
Quote
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that the Constitution may trump the debt ceiling, allowing the administration a way out of the default impasse.

Negotiators are considering gutting the social safety net in exchange for a vote to lift the debt ceiling. Grassley, in a conference call with local reporters, said that there may be another way out.

"There's one thing that hasn't been talked about yet, and I haven't checked on the constitutionality of it -- and I read the Constitution, but I don't remember reading this -- but in the 14th amendment, there's something that says something about the debt of the United States government shall be honored," Grassley said, according to a recording of the call. "The 14th Amendment includes a public debt clause that insists the obligations of the government 'shall not be questioned.'"

"So people are looking at the fact that maybe the debt ceiling bill that Congress presumably has to pass for the government to borrow more maybe is contrary to that constitutional provision, and that the administration may take out [loans] on their own -- just to borrow money -- and say that they can ignore the law," he said.

Of course, this is a very interesting issue.
Whatever the ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE Constitutional interpretation for taking this position, IMO it WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR OBAMA TO POLITICALLY SURVIVE taking this position for at least 3 reasons.

1) He voted against extending the Debt Limit, NOT - as far as I know - because it was unconstitutional and, to my knowledge, has never before embraced that position.
2) THE NARRATIVE about Dems in general does not give him a solid footing IN THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION for taking a strong stand based on a Constitutional PRINCIPAL
3) THE RIGHT WING NARRATIVE (most recently reflected in Rove's PAC's ads re: no more "blank check") about Obama acting like a dictator would be "confirmed" by an action or threat of action by the President that essentially says he can continue spending (even based on laws passed by the Congress) without action by the Congress

Of course, the racial animosities that underlie SOME of the opposition to Obama would be inflamed - possibly to a point of violence.

If the President were to embrace what seems a reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment - WITHOUT wide and deep support from Repubs and Tea's - it would be his political end.

IMO
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: soflorattler on July 09, 2011, 10:19:44 PM
^^^To that end, I'm thinking that he's going to go "all in" (for the good of the country), calling their bluff and pushing them to show their hand...
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 10, 2011, 01:20:48 PM
SoFlo,

My heart hopes he does. ^^
My mind is deeply concerned about the consequences of even a flirtation with a default, which could put a fragile recovery into a tailspin.
O0
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: soflorattler on July 10, 2011, 03:44:40 PM
From my view, his track record has shown that he deal with them like he deals with wayward children. He tells them what they're doing wrong, what they need to do to make it right, then allow them to either bump their heads and suffer the consequences, or follow his instructions and succeed.  :shrug:
Title: Re: Two Related Articles That Put Current Disputes in Some Perspective
Post by: Bison66 on July 10, 2011, 03:55:12 PM
 :nod:

O0