HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » EW: "We're in this ...

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:07 PM

 

EW: "We're in this position for one reason, and one reason only ...."

49 replies, 6515 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply EW: "We're in this position for one reason, and one reason only ...." (Original post)
Scuba Oct 2013 OP
Le Taz Hot Oct 2013 #1
treestar Oct 2013 #2
sheshe2 Oct 2013 #4
RC Oct 2013 #18
Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #19
Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #20
Scuba Oct 2013 #29
Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #48
DallasNE Oct 2013 #28
treestar Oct 2013 #36
Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #3
sheshe2 Oct 2013 #6
Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #11
freshwest Oct 2013 #15
Uncle Joe Oct 2013 #17
silverweb Oct 2013 #5
DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #7
coldmountain Oct 2013 #12
DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #26
noiretextatique Oct 2013 #37
coldmountain Oct 2013 #43
DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #44
Snake Plissken Oct 2013 #8
Enthusiast Oct 2013 #21
Brigid Oct 2013 #9
calimary Oct 2013 #10
Enthusiast Oct 2013 #22
mountain grammy Oct 2013 #13
Jakes Progress Oct 2013 #14
Mass Oct 2013 #16
B Calm Oct 2013 #23
TBF Oct 2013 #24
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Oct 2013 #25
heaven05 Oct 2013 #27
Brigid Oct 2013 #30
Scuba Oct 2013 #31
ffr Oct 2013 #32
AtomicKitten Oct 2013 #33
jmowreader Oct 2013 #34
noiretextatique Oct 2013 #38
DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #45
Tigress DEM Oct 2013 #49
Cali_Democrat Oct 2013 #35
Scurrilous Oct 2013 #39
ut oh Oct 2013 #40
backscatter712 Oct 2013 #41
DeSwiss Oct 2013 #42
DissidentVoice Oct 2013 #46
Eleanors38 Oct 2013 #47

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:09 PM

1. Kick for anything Elizabeth Warren. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:10 PM

2. We need some legislation that would make the debt ceiling

go up automatically with inflation.

I was reading about it last night, and it was passed in 1917. Before that, there had been no limits on the President in spending. So it was to reign in the President's power.

Yet it was nearly 100 years before there was a Congress that refused to raise it to use that as leverage.

With the Tea Party there is no gentleman's agreement that certain things are just not done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:31 PM

4. +1! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 07:38 PM

18. The Debt Ceiling is another construct of Congress because they can't control their own spending.

 

The very first time they ran up against it, they raised the ceiling. It is really not good for much except for shutting down the government.
The Debt Ceiling itself is a problem and needs to be done away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 07:49 PM

19. I agree, RC. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 03:04 AM

20. Until Reagan Tripled the Debt, Congress and Presidents were staying somewhat in line.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tigress DEM (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 12:55 PM

29. Great graphic. Do you know the source?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:49 AM

48. Made up a Tiny URL because it's buried deep in some financial section.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 12:40 PM

28. The History Of The Debt Ceiling

Isolationist Republicans rammed the bill through to limit the amount of war bonds President Wilson could issue to fight WW I. Following the war they decided to keep it in place and extend it to all spending. It was not need then and it is not needed now. Often an increase is attached to a budget to allow payment for the spending in the budget. It should be abolished as it serves no useful purpose. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:40 PM

36. Yes. None except giving Republicans a leverage

Democrats should have used it to push back against Bush but Democrats aren't assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:23 PM

3. If the Republican House carries through and runs out on the bill, by not raising the debt limit.

They will be in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and will have broken their oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.



Edit for P.S. Not to mention the economic consequences will be catastrophic as the dollar will rapidly deteriorate over night and interest rates go through the roof.

Thanks for the thread, Scuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:32 PM

6. Well done, Uncle Joe!

Thanks~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #6)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:02 PM

11. ..

Thanks for the thanks, sheshe and peace to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:57 PM

15. Reasons Obama investigated this in 2011 and it didn't work then and won't now:

From the paragraph cited, but my emphasis instead of the clause most often used. It must be taken in its full context:

Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That's the first problem, it was Constutional house keeping as the war ended.

The election of Lincoln to a second term on the policies he ran on, which resulted in the creation of the Confederacy, making the Emancipation Proclaimation, and even the Civil War itself, did not get everything done.

It took the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments for that, and some have never accepted them. Much was undone by assassinating Lincoln and the collapse of the Reconstruction by southern terrorists.

That was followed later with the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, eligibilty tests and the rest of the hideous oppression carried out.

Here's the second and the real problem with any attempt to invoke the 14th:

As Obama said, it makes it look like 'we don't have our act together.' Credit, debts, loans, currencies and markets depend on the confidence of those engaged on either side of a transaction.

The 'trillion dollar coin' or 'invoking the 14th' does not address the real root problem, which is not a law but trust.

What we are up against now with the GOP is the same as what FDR said:

But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.

Every time the GOP talks about the deficit, they should be slapped, hard. The budget defines the morals and priorities of its citizens,



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 07:37 PM

17. The keyword in the 14th Amendment is the word "including."

This is addressing all debt, not just "Constitutional house keeping" from the Civil War



Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.



Obama and the White House gave up on it too quickly in 2011, section 4 has rarely if ever been litigated and not having this settled is part of the reason as to why we are where are today.

With the Republican House threatening to not raise the debt ceiling and causing the nation to default, this is the prime time to litigate.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all U.S. public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.[152] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States bond "went beyond the congressional power."[153]

The debt-ceiling crisis in 2011 raised the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President, an issue that remains unsettled.[154] Some, such as legal scholar Garrett Epps, fiscal expert Bruce Bartlett and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have argued that a debt ceiling may be unconstitutional and therefore void as long as it interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (that is, Social Security recipients).[155][156] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[157] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]".[158]



Regarding this, I don't believe anyone can argue that the House "has their act together."



As Obama said, it makes it look like 'we don't have our act together.' Credit, debts, loans, currencies and markets depend on the confidence of those engaged on either side of a transaction.



Furthermore even if the White House can't raise the debt ceiling the Constitutional challenge against a debt ceiling needs to be made, or the nation will continue to fall in to this pattern of "not having our act together."

This takes nothing away from Congresses' ability to control the power of the purse but there is no logical reason to have a debt ceiling as it can only lead to continued crisis.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:31 PM

5. Repeat and repeat!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]This point needs to be hammered home again and again until every teadunce in the country gets it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:40 PM

7. I want to support Elizabeth Warren...I really do...

However, I've been disappointed (to put it mildly!) in the last two Democratic Administrations, for being "GOP-lite."

Don't get me wrong. I don't regret my votes for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but I want a Democrat to be a Democrat.

I don't want to throw my support behind her, only to have her turn "centrist" (meaning: GOP-lite) once she gets into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:38 PM

12. Like Obama keeps quoting FDR, "That's a good idea, now make me do it"

 

Just electing a Democrat POTUS isn't going to get the job done. We have to elect the Congress to help them or to push them in the right direction. That's where the DINO's are, in Congress. I'm sure Jimmy, Bill, Barack and Hillary would want to go much further left, but like Hillary says, "First you have to get elected". I'm sure a President Warren or President Dean or President Gore would end up the same way if we don't get them a progressive Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coldmountain (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:17 AM

26. I don't see why the "Blue Dogs" don't just become Republicans

Because, as you said, it's because of people in Congress that they're helped or hindered.

The Democratic Party has already moved so far to the right that to elect a self-described "centrist Democrat" would be like electing a "moderate Republican."

So with the "Blue Dogs" still calling themselves Democrats, or going the Zell Miller route, they are just hurting the Democratic Party and not being true to themselves by remaining Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:46 PM

37. teabag asshole vs "pro-life" D

was the choice a DUer recently posted about re: 2010 election what kind "choice" is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DissidentVoice (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:19 PM

43. Let another Bush/Cheney in there and you will see the difference

 

It seems many have a short memory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coldmountain (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:25 PM

44. I remember quite well

And I remember quite well how Zell Miller stumped for Bush/Cheney in 2004, and how he's had nothing good to say about the Democratic Party since, while remaining (nominally) a member of that party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:48 PM

8. Lets run up a deficit by borrowing money for two useless wars and unneeded tax cuts for the wealthy

and we'll blame it on the Poor and Middle Class.

The GOP's mission statement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snake Plissken (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:06 AM

21. Nailed that one.

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:57 PM

9. I love her.

That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brigid (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:00 PM

10. Take a number!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brigid (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:06 AM

22. Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:39 PM

13. When Elizabeth Warren speaks, I never feel alone. She speaks for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:39 PM

14. The president could take lessons

from Sen. Warren on how to communicate with the American public.

I love his campaign speeches, but his skills there evaporate after he is elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:58 PM

16. It would be wonderful if the word "Republican" was in this sentence.

MA sends a full Democratic delegation. She is not part of these drivels that block everything. The GOP and its leadership are the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:19 AM

23. They hate her because she tells the truth!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:06 AM

24. She's awesome. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 11:07 AM

25. Dine and dash feeloading Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 12:04 PM

27. voice of sanity

 

among the insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 01:09 PM

30. I think I have an idea why she is not interested in running for POTUS

I cannot speak for her, of course; but I suspect she is afraid she may be less free to speak her mind if she were interested in running for higher office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brigid (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 01:14 PM

31. I don't buy that, as everything she says seems to be embraced by the People.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 01:29 PM

32. Her words are devastatingly effective.

She's someone I'd look up to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 01:37 PM

33. EW is moving up in 2016 polling.

 

In New Hampshire, Clinton still ahead, Warren moves up

Raleigh, N.C. Hillary Clinton maintained her lead in New Hampshire against potential opponents for president by margins of four to 12 points each this weekend. Republican Chris Christie gave her the closest challenge with 39% to her 43%.

Yet her dominance has dropped a bit among Democrats since we polled in April. Among likely Democratic primary voters, 57% chose her for their presidential candidate, compared to 68% five months ago. Joe Biden was next with 12%, then Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren with 11%, up from 5% in April.

link: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/in-new-hampshire-clinton-still-ahead-warren-moves-up.html#more


Elizabeth Warren Preferred Over Hillary Clinton For President In 2016, Shows Poll Of Progressive Activists

A survey of attendees at this week's Take Back the American Dream conference in Washington, D.C. revealed that 59 percent of them want a female president in 2016.

Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren edged out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the top pick for the next Democratic presidential nominee by a margin of 32 to 27 percent, according to end-of-conference straw poll results released on Wednesday.

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-2016-poll_n_1613671.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:31 PM

34. I hate to say this, but she's wrong

We are in this position because a small faction in the House of Representatives has decided no Democratic president is legitimate. They have decided to overthrow them all; if they manage to erase what Barack Obama has done, they will keep going until they've erased everything Andrew Jackson, the president who decided the states have no right of nullification, did.

The spending issue is just a ruse. Republicans have absolutely no problem with big spending...as long as a Republican president asks for it. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush spent money like aircraft-carrierfuls of drunken sailors on shore leave, and it's GOP Holy Writ that Ronald Reagan was the Perfect President. Obama cuts the deficit in half, and he's a spendthrift.

It's not that Congress wants to run out on its bills, it's that the Tea Party is threatening to do it to force the president to give them what they want, and what they want is for one particular law to be abolished. If they get Obamacare, Dodd-Frank is next followed by Lilly Ledbetter and the rest of the handful of laws Congress bothered to pass since 2009. Once they've wiped out Obama's presidency, they'll start work on Clinton's, then Carter's and LBJ's...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:51 PM

38. actually...you proved her right!

republicons do not have a problem with deficit spending as long as they are killing people and profiting the military industrial complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:27 PM

45. Remember Dick Cheney?

"...Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Like you say, they're perfectly good with it if it goes for building bombs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:51 AM

49. Well, not exactly. I think it's THIS *AND* THAT

Agree they want to roll us back to the dark ages.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:32 PM

35. This!

 

Congress racked up those bills and now they're bailing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 02:52 PM

39. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 03:41 PM

40. where can we get this image to link to?

I tried linking to the URL in properties cause I wanted to post on facebook, but it said something about privacy settings not allowing linking to it.

TIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 04:09 PM

41. Boehner's Dine-and-Dash Congress! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 04:23 PM

42. Actually Elizabeth to be totally clear about it, the reason is RACISM.

 

- Which is not unexpected given that this nation's foundations were laid with the bricks of liberty and freedom but weakly held together with the mortar of racism and slavery.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:29 PM

46. Liberty and freedom for SOME

The Founders obviously did not believe that "all men are created equal," or they would have ended slavery from the getgo, and given women the vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2013, 05:50 PM

47. Obama and Warren: One has timing, the other can lead.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread