Latest crazy plan from the USA

Page 5 of 6  
Since when did libs call for MORE guns? Only when those are government guns, like TSA, or Parks Department.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Also, if I heard Obama correctly at his announcement on gun control today, he wants MORE spending for more police, school security, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:00:48 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Oh *heavens*. Didn't the NRA call for more school security. Didn't the leftist loons here laugh at them for it? Typical.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/16/2013 2:25 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

I thought guards at schools were called for or put in place back during The Clinton Administration? O_o
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well the alternative would be to ban all gun ownership.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9801377/Insulting-words-crime-which-made-it-illegal-to-call-a-police-horse-gay-is-to-be-changed.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

# <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9801377/Insulting-words-crime-which-made-it-illegal-to-call-a-police-horse-gay-is-to-be-changed.html
Poor harry. Needs to brag about how stupid they are in the UK..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01-15-2013 13:40, Kurt Ullman wrote:

I always thought it was weird how "I said" evolved into "I'm like"
Similar is how "We want" evolved into "we need"
--
Wes Groleau

ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually there is a line of SC decisions from the days of Nixon forward specifically saying that the President HAS to spend the money as Congress tells him. RMN tried to do a president-run sequester and the Supremes said that a no-no. He has very little ability to not spend money.. even money that ain't there.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There would seem to be some important differences. In the case of Nixon, there was no issue of the govt not having sufficient money. It was Nixon just deciding that he wasn't going to spend the money that was allocated on certain programs that he didn't like and wanted to cut. It was an attempt at a huge expansion of presidential power. If a president could do that, he in effect has the last say on cutting spending and there would be nothing the Congress could do to stop him. Not even an overide or a veto.
In the upcoming case, it's where the Congress has not provided the funding to meet the spending that it has authorized. Under those conditions, let's say the president just cut all spending across the board by X% to match it to the revenue available. I think the SC would have a very different interpretation of that. It's clearly not a power grab, just a reaction to reality.
On the other hand, if the president tries to use the 14th amendment, or mint his $1tril coin, I would say THAT is a power grab. There is no reason the debt ceiling can't be raised. It's just that the president is unwilling to make some reasonable spending cuts to get the Congress to approve it per the existing balance of power and constitutional process. In fact, he's so arrogant, that he's actually said he refuses to negotiate the matter period. That route is the Nixon analogy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It will be interesting how this all plays out. IMNSHO, it is a lot of political bluff on either side. And the country suffers by it. I can't see any upside for the Republicans though.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The SC opinion (and it was on impoundment, not sequestration, sorry) argues against that specific tact. Impoundment was defended by RMN as being a power derived from the Presidents executive powers and particularly from his ***obligation to see to the faithful execution of the laws**, i.e., his discretion in the manner of execution. The President, the argument went, is responsible for deciding when two conflicting goals of Congress can be harmonized and when one must give way, when, for example, congressional desire to spend certain moneys must yield to congressional wishes to see price and wage stability. In some respects, impoundment was said or implied to flow from certain inherent executive powers that repose in any President. Finally, statutory support was sought; certain laws were said to confer discretion to withhold spending, and it was argued that congressional spending programs are discretionary rather than mandatory.
This EXACTLY what is happening here (conflicting goals of Congress between spending money and allowing an increase in borrowing).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem again is that there was no such conflicting goals at issue in the case of RMN as decided by the SC:
"In this case, President Richard Nixon was of the view that the administration was not obligated to disburse all funds allocated by Congress to states seeking federal monetary assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and ordered the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program he vetoed, and which had been overridden by Congress.[2
"The Court ruled that the president could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program in these circumstances. The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.[2]
Not only did Nixon have no conflict to resolve, he was specifically refusing to disburse funds for a program that he had vetoed and Congress had overriden. He was clearly frustrating the will of Congress.

There is no conflciting goal here that cannot be easily resolved. The path to resolving it constitutionally is clear. All the president and the Democrats have to do is agree to some reasonable spending cuts and the debt limit will be raised. It's not an impossible or even difficult hurdle to achieve. If you grant Obama this unprecedented power, it would, IMO, just set the stage for similar stunts in the future. Instead of fairly negotiating, just do what Obama is doing, refuse to negotiate or compromise and instead force a fake crisis. In fact, he's doing what RNM did, frustrating the will of Congress. And I think if it gets to the SC, there is a good chance that view will prevail. This is a very different case than RNM and a different SC too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

The courts cannot order the President to spend money that is not there - no court can order anyone to do something impossible.
That said, if a court cannot order this impossible thing, then the court cannot order the president - or any other - to do something that is clearly within his discretion. If it DID have that power, then there wouldn't be any need for a president - simply let the courts decide.
On the other hand, with the current make-up of great swaths of the federal judiciary, it could happen. That is, many federal judges are somewhat liberal and are swayed more by "what feels good," rather than what the black-letter law says.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/13/13 9:57 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

It's funny how things change. Quote from BHO:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government cannot pay its own bills.
It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.'
"Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Sen. Barack H. Obama, March 2006
Source: http://tinyurl.com/bbgl95a
This poses a question. Did Obama have all the mirrors removed from the White House?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9784898/US-seriously-considering-1-trillion-coin-to-pay-off-debt.html
I couldn't make it up either. But, Harry, This was proposed as a tongue-in-cheek solution .
If you thought it was serious, then you have been hoodwinked.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd say it's you who has been hoodwinked. There is even a petiton on the White House website you can sign to support it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/trillion-dollar-coin-petition_n_2409704.html
"There's a push to have the president create a special weapon to avert another debt ceiling crisis. That special weapon is a trillion-dollar platinum coin, and it's a proposition the Obama administration may be forced to soon consider.
The movement is gaining steam, and the latest indication is a new White House petition calling for the measure. Created on Thursday, the petition already has gained 2,067 signatures as of 1:17 p.m. Friday. Any petition that garners 25,000 signatures requires a White House response. "
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think so. It is a legal dodge to get round the political machinations between Rs and Ds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/9/2013 2:24 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9784898/US-seriously-considering-1-trillion-coin-to-pay-off-debt.html
The whole concept of money is just that. A concept.
Money used to be spices. Made more sense then. Now it's 1s and 0s on a hard drive. We're headed for a world economy where the debt will be meaningless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amazing. This "logic" is truly amazing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Money is not wealth. Wealth can only be created by work. When the government creates money (by whatever means) they are stealing it out of your pocket because all that happens is all money becomes worth less. (Because wealth has not increased) It's a government tool called inflation, done deliberately to steal your money. It's what the "trillion dollar" coin is all about
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.