Page 1 of 6 12345 ... Last
  1. #1
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Debt ceiling called unconstitutional ??

    Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling?
    Yes, and he should, some experts say

    By Chris Moody - Political Reporter The Ticket – 5 hrs ago


    As both major parties debate their conditions for raising the nation's debt ceiling, some Senate Democrats and constitutional scholars are questioning whether the limit is constitutional in the first place.

    Delaware Sen. Chris Coons told The Huffington Post this week that he's part of a group of lawmakers now examining whether, in the case that debt negotiations fail, the Treasury could ignore Congress and continue paying its bills on time. "This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Coons told Huffington Post reporters Ryan Grim and Samuel Haass. "[I]t's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?' "

    Critics of the debt limit cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states: "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." (Emphasis ours)

    Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment is open to wide, and varying, interpretation and debate. The most basic question here is, does a limit on debt "question" the "validity" of the debt?

    Legal scholar Garrett Epps, writing in The Atlantic in April http//www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-speech-obama-could-give-the-constitution-forbids-default/237977/ said that a case could easily made for simply ignoring the congressionally mandated debt limit. "This provision makes clear that both the monies our nation owes to bondholders, and the sums promised in legislation to those receiving pensions set by law from the federal government, must be paid regardless of the political whims of the current congressional majority," Epps wrote.

    In essence, Epps argues that Obama should stand before Congress and say, Tough luck--the Constitution says we can't default. Epps argued that in the event that Congress does not act, Obama should (and could) instruct the Treasury Department to issue "binding debt instruments on the world market sufficient to cover all the current obligations of the United States government, even in default of Congressional action to meet those obligations."

    President Obama's own views on the subject, however, are unclear. During his press conference Wednesday, Obama dodged a question about the debt limit's constitutionality, telling NBC's Chuck Todd: "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on."

    Obama understandably didn't want to show his cards by hashing out a plan for how he would act in the event Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. But some observers have already outlined how he could--and still get away with it.

    Writing in the Financial Times in April, Former Reagan adviser and Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said the Obama administration could justify ignoring Congress to ensure the nation pays its debts. http//www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx "The president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation's debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war," Bartlett wrote. "Under those circumstances, when default is the only possible alternative, I believe that the president and the Treasury secretary would be justified in taking extraordinary action to prevent it, even if it means violating the debt limit."

    However, if Obama were to follow that route, it's still unclear how the courts would rule.


    Grim and Saass point to the 1935 Perry v. U.S Supreme Court ruling, which determined that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the national debt. What's more, they observe, according to the majority opinion on the case, no act of Congress can undermine promises of debt payment from the federal government. "To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," wrote Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who presided over the case.

    Even with that precedent, however, the specific debt limit as we know it today has not yet seen its day in court. Should the White House's negotiations with Congress on the debt ceiling fail, it will be up to Obama to decide whether he wants to start that fight, which would no doubt require years-long court battles to settle.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/c...142136726.html

    comments

    ...that a case could easily made for simply ignoring the congressionally mandated debt limit...
    Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Seperation of Powers ??

    ---

    Whatever the government wants to do to rob, kidnap, and murder us is Constitutional, and whatever obstacles exist in the path of the government are unconstitutional. Isn't it amazing how that works?

    ---

    pay attention to what is happening in Greece. that way you will be prepared for what happens in the US over the next 2-3 years.

    ---

    Oh, I know where we could start saving money...how bout we stop giving billions upon billions to non americans, no matter if they are overseas or domestic. Enough is enough!

    ---

    Never should have had debt to begin with!!!!! A balanced budget ammendment coupled with term limits for all federal positions & judges would end most of this BS. No more life long terms for judges and no more than 2 terms as a senator or representative. Serving in the government is not a career, our founders made that crystal clear in their writings. Serve your term and go back to your vocation. New ideas and fresh thoughts, not old tired, out of touch 70+ year olds trying to become significant to themselves, while the live the priviledged life on our hard earned tax dollars.

    ---

    Both parties have trampled on the constitution to the point that the founders, and anyone cherishing liberty, wouldn't recognize it. They should all be tried and jailed for what they have done to our country.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Debt ceiling called unconstitutional ??
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Senate cancels July 4 recess to work on debt limit
    By ALAN FRAM - 1 hr 20 mins ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate canceled its planned July Fourth recess on Thursday, but partisan divisions remained razor sharp as the clock ticked on efforts to strike a deal to avoid a government default and trim huge federal deficits.

    A day after President Barack Obama accused congressional leaders of procrastinating over the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced that the chamber would meet beginning next Tuesday. The Republican-run House is not in session this week but had already been scheduled to be at work next week.

    Despite the Senate's schedule change, there was no indication the two sides had progressed in resolving their chief disagreement. Democrats insist that a deficit-cutting package of deep spending cuts also include higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans and fewer tax breaks for oil companies. Republicans say any such agreement would be defeated in Congress, a point Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made anew when he invited Obama to meet with GOP lawmakers at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon.

    "That way he can hear directly from Republicans why what he's proposing won't pass," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "And we can start talking about what's actually possible."

    McConnell's invitation seemed almost like a taunt, since well before McConnell spoke the White House had announced that Obama was heading to Philadelphia to attend Democratic fundraising events.

    In Philadelphia, the president was met outside one fundraising event by protesters demanding less spending.

    Later, at a donors home, he reiterated his call for spending cuts and new tax revenues.

    "The truth is you could figure out on the back of a napkin how to get this thing done," he said. "The question is one of political will."

    White House spokesman Jay Carney defended Obama's decision to attend the fundraisers, saying, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time." He also said McConnell had merely "invited the president to hear what would not pass. That's not a conversation worth having."

    The Obama administration has warned that if the government's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit is not raised by Aug. 2, the U.S. will face its first default ever, potentially throwing world financial markets into turmoil, raising interest rates and threatening the economic recovery. Many congressional Republicans indicate they're unconvinced that such scenarios would occur, and some administration officials worry that it could take a financial calamity before Congress acts.

    One Democratic official familiar with the debt talks said the real deadline for reaching an bipartisan agreement on the debt and deficit reduction is mid-July, in order to give congressional leaders time to win votes and put final details of a deal into shape. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal details of private negotiations.

    Obama has said that in talks, Republican and Democratic negotiators have found more than $1 trillion in potential spending cuts over the coming decade, including reductions favored by both sides.

    The Democratic official said Thursday that of those cuts, roughly $200 billion would come mainly from savings from Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health insurance programs for the poor and elderly.

    Another $200 billion would come from cuts in other automatically paid benefit programs, including farm subsidies. Another large chunk would come from cuts in discretionary spending that Congress approves every year — presumably over $1 trillion, which is more than the White House but less than Republicans have proposed.

    Both sides would then also count whatever interest savings they achieve through those deficit cuts.

    The White House is also proposing about $400 billion in higher tax revenues. Republicans want no tax increases and deeper spending cuts than Democrats have proposed.

    The overall goal would be to cut at least $2 trillion over 10 years.

    Increasing the current borrowing limit by about $2.4 trillion would carry the government until the end of 2012 — thereby avoiding another congressional vote on the issue until after the next presidential and congressional elections. Republicans have insisted on coupling any extension with at least an equal amount of budget savings.

    For next week, Reid laid plans for the Senate to debate legislation authorizing U.S. involvement in Libya. He told reporters that Democratic senators would also discuss the deficit standoff with Obama next Wednesday at the Capitol or the White House, meet with administration economic advisers and learn about a deficit-cutting plan crafted by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

    "What we have to do is too important to not be here," Reid said.

    But GOP senators belittled the plans, saying little would be achieved.

    "Talk about Libya? How does that answer the concerns expressed by the president" about the debt limit, said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.

    A confrontational tone dominated the day, with each side accusing the other of lacking seriousness about finding a way to extend the debt ceiling.

    "Where is the president? Campaigning," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of a parade of GOP senators who took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of not tackling the deficit standoff. "We're here, Mr. President."

    Democrats focused on the GOP refusal to consider tax increases, including loophole closers Democrats have proposed on companies that ship jobs abroad and on wealthy owners of yachts, race horses and aircraft.

    "Protecting them is not protecting America," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the No. 2 Senate Democratic leader.

    The stakes of the debate were underscored when a Standard & Poor's executive said the credit-rating agency would give the government its lowest rating should lawmakers fail to agree on raising the borrowing limit and cause a federal default.

    Should that occur, S&P would drop the U.S. rating of AAA to D, John Chambers, managing director of sovereign ratings for the company, said on Bloomberg Television.

    The United States pays an average of about 3 percent on its existing debt, according to the Treasury Department. In 2010, that added up to $197 billion in interest payments.

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects interest paid will rise from $463 billion by 2015. That's under the assumption that the U.S. keeps its AAA credit rating. A D rating from Standard & Poor's would force the government to pay sharply higher interest rates.

    Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, noted that one of the biggest challenges if the U.S. defaults would be finding enough investors who could buy junk-rated bonds. Pension funds and other institutional investors who buy a large number of Treasurys aren't generally allowed to buy securities with such low credit ratings.

    http://beta.news.yahoo.com/senate-ca...221434419.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    As Unemployment Spikes, Obama's Got a Bigger Problem Than the Debt Ceiling

    By John Nichols | The Nation – Fri, Jul 8, 2011

    The big story out of Washington—and rightly so—is the debt-ceiling fight that President Obama seems to be coming very close to losing. If the president abandons his 2008 campaigvn promise to be an absolute defender of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, he will have very little indeed to run on in 2012.

    But that won't be what beats him.

    Because the biggest story in America is a different one from the biggest story in Washington. Americans are not that into the debt-ceiling debate. Polling has suggested that less than a quarter of Americans are "closely following" the fight. Those numbers will rise a bit as the deadline gets closer and as the media hypes the issue.

    The issue that Americans have been following closely, and will continue to follow straight through the 2012 election cycle, the issue that tops the polls on the list of concerns, is the jobs crisis. Americans are worried about unemployment and underemployment.

    And on Friday they got a lot more worried.

    The Los Angeles Times headline was stark: "Dismal Jobs Report Shows Unemployment Rising to 9.2%."

    The New York Times headline was, if anything, bleaker: "Job Growth Falters Badly, Clouding Hopes for Recovery."

    The 9.2 percent official unemployment rate—up from 9.0 percent two months ago and 9.1 percent a month ago—is only a pale shadow of the real rate. Categorized in official terms as the "U6" unemployment, the real rate includes the offically unemployed as well as Americans who are underemployed and those who have given up on the search for work. It stands at more than 16 percent nationally. And in depressed states, such as Michigan (which Obama carried handily in 2008 but where is approval ratings are now troublingly low), it is well over 20 percent.

    The official and the real unemployment rates are devastating. These numbers are some of the worst since the Great Depression. But they are not getting the response that high unemployment rates got from Democrats in the Depression era of other periods of economic downtown in the years since.

    President Obama and his team have never focused on job issues with the intensity that is needed. And now they are simply being ridiculous.

    David Plouffe, the president's political czar, said on the eve of the release of Friday's dismal jobs numbers that he does not believe that the high unemployment rate poses a threat to President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

    Speaking to reporters this week, Plouffe said, “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

    The almost 10 percent of Americans who are officially unemployed probably don’t feel all that great about their situation. The same goes for the the tens of millions of additional Americans who are underemployed or who have fallen off official radar because they have given up on the search for work in communities where there are simply no jobs to be had.

    The unemployed, the underemployed and the abandoned add up to almost one in five Americans. And an awfully lot of them live in battleground states such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania —all of which President Obama won in 2008, all of which President Obama needs to win in 2012.


    Now, let’s be clear, no one in their right mind thinks that Republicans who would be president are any more concerned about jobless Americans than is the Obama administration.

    But neglecting unemployment as an issue—or presuming, as Plouffe does, that Americans will give Obama the benefit of the doubt—is political madness.

    When unemployment reaches the level that it has nationally, and the even higher levels that it has in battleground states, potential Obama voters start losing faith that "the president makes decisions based on me and my family."

    Some of the disappointed may still vote for Obama out of fear of the Republicans, some will find social issues that draw them to the Republicans, but millions will simply stay home —as they did in 2010.

    That's the danger heading into the 2012 race, and it is more profound today that at any time in Barack Obama's presidency.

    Obama is toying with the notion of running for reelection as the president who did what George Bush could not: cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

    That calculus suggests that Obama and his team really are out of touch with the electoral dynamic.

    But that is not the most politically tone deaf scheme to come out of the president's camp this week.

    While the president's apparent willingness to take the best argument available to Democrats going into the 2012 election cycle—the promise that they will defend Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—suggests that Obama learned nothing from the Democratic party's devastating electoral experience in 2010, his top political aide's statements with regard to unemployment suggest that his team has learned even less.

    No president since Franklin Roosevelt has won reelection when the unemployment rate was over 7 percent. And Roosevelt won because he ran as a candidate who was fully willing to use the power of the federal government to create jobs —and programs like Social Security.

    The notion that a Democratic president can win reelection with an unemployment rate that is edging upward—perhaps toward double digits—and talk of cutting Social Security is not merely unrealistic. It is evidence of a disconnect that could devastate not just Obama's reelection campaign in 2012 but Democratic prospects for years to come.

    http://news.yahoo.com/unemployment-s...165041783.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #4
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Pols Playing Poker​—​Badly
    By William Kristol | The Weekly Standard – 2 hrs 24 mins ago


    The debt ceiling negotiations have become a tedious game of dorm room poker. Barack Obama is the dealer, and the deck is stacked in his favor. He’s enjoying the game. Even so, he’s not as good as he thinks he is: Witness his comment last week to House Republican leader Eric Cantor, “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” which suggests the president doesn’t know it’s a bad idea to tell your opponent you’re bluffing. Still, Obama has the advantage over the Republican congressional leadership, who are playing weak hands .  .  . weakly. Meanwhile, the GOP rank and file and conservatives around the country are exasperated, at once disliking the whole game and annoyed that they’ve only been allowed to participate at the last moment.

    So, when all the collegiate Sturm und Drang is over, Obama may come out slightly ahead.

    But if so, only slightly​—​and maybe not at all. Because it looks as if we’ll end up with no tax hikes, some spending cuts, and a situation in which Obama and the Democrats are basically responsible for our assuming ever more unsustainable debt, while most Republicans oppose the final deal. Meanwhile, we have to endure a painful few weeks here in Washington, with GOP congressional aides cringing as their bosses get outplayed in some low pot hands, and the liberal media whooping and hollering as Obama pockets a few penny antes.

    But how much damage is really being done? Public opinion polls in the real America have so far shown no movement in Obama’s direction or towards the Democrats. Gallup reported last week that the generic GOP candidate had opened up an 8-point lead over President Obama, the largest yet, when voters were asked their 2012 intentions. Rasmussen reported a more or less steady 5-point lead for Republicans in the generic congressional ballot. So fretful conservative commentators who are gnashing their teeth over every hand should probably calm down. It’s just not worth getting too worked over all the misleading arguments being tossed around. And there’s no reason to give credibility to the media’s attempt to make this a decisive moment in the battle for America’s future.

    It’s not. The real high-stakes poker game is in 2012. That’s when the voters will call Obama’s bluff.

    Because it’s hard​—​even for Barack Obama​—​to bluff reality. The whole structure Obama is defending​—​liberal big government, a bloated public sector, the entitlement state​—​is a bluff. It can’t deliver on its promises. It produces slow growth, debilitating regulation, and a dissatisfied citizenry. It can’t work, and it doesn’t work, and when the college game is adjourned, the players have to go out into the real world of real consequences.

    In that world, conservatives will have every chance to make the case that liberal policies fail and conservative policies work. It’s not a difficult case to make. They get to defend Carter’s economy and Obama’s, and Greece’s welfare state and California’s. Conservatives get to appeal to the records Reagan and Thatcher, and the economic performance of conservatively governed Canada and Texas. Conservatives should do fine in this real world debate.

    This​—​a common sense appeal to experience, to the tests of reality​—​may well be enough for a Republican to prevail in 2012. But a bold and fresh agenda in addition wouldn’t hurt. And such an agenda will be essential for the task of governing in 2013. The challenges that will face President Bachmann or Romney or Pawlenty or Perry or Ryan or Christie or Rubio in 2013 will be very different and in some ways more fundamental from those of the past. The reform agenda that will be required will have to be bold and comprehensive. The work of developing such an agenda is what’s truly important, and in many respects it’s well underway.

    Republicans and conservatives have to play their hands as they’re dealt. But they should keep in mind that this year’s tussles are mere warm-ups for the serious poker games of 2012 and 2013. In those games, no one will be bluffing, and conservatives need to be ready to go all in, and to win.

    http://news.yahoo.com/pols-playing-p...150309753.html
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Why Is Cost of Illegal Immigration Ignored In Debt Ceiling Debate?
    By Bob Dane Published July 18, 2011


    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...#ixzz1SW4aCbGE

    While the debt ceiling debate rages and Congress is busy haggling over who should be taxed and what programs should be slashed, they’ve promised to consider all options except …one.

    Lawmakers have chosen to forget that immigration is a discretionary social policy that by definition is designed to be adjusted to serve the nation’s broad national interest, particularly during difficult economic times. This discretionary policy is a powerful economic tool, but only if it is brought out and used.

    No comprehensive financial fix can be complete without Congress demanding increased enforcement against illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration to sustainable levels. Reforming immigration would tighten the labor market, open up jobs for legal U.S. residents, and reduce the overall fiscal strain that immigration imposes on health care, education and other social services.

    Doing so is an urgent mandate and a legitimate, justified use of policy.

    If not now, then when?

    Here are four ways that Congress could get to work… now!

    1. Increase Enforcement and Reduce Costs


    American taxpayers spend $113 billion annually subsidizing illegal immigration and padding the pockets of businesses addicted to cheap labor. Taxpayers at the state and local levels bear the brunt, providing $84 billion in services annually while the federal government spends $29 billion. The latter figure is – incidentally -- almost exactly equal to the interest payment on the total federal debt this past April. Of course, the debt continues to grow uncontrollably because the government must borrow to keep up with, among other things, the growing cost of illegal immigration.

    In some states, reducing the fiscal burden of illegal immigration would represent nothing short of an economic miracle:

    - California’s budget deficit is $28 billion yet the state spends $21.8 billion subsidizing illegal immigration, or 75% of their total deficit.

    - Massachusetts could almost clear their books by ending illegal alien subsidies; the state’s deficit is $2 billion while their annual cost of illegal immigration is $1.86 billion.

    - Maryland and New York would enjoy much needed surpluses; those state’s expenditures on illegal immigration actually exceed their deficits!

    The savings can’t be realized overnight because much of the expense is mandated by law requiring the education of the children of illegal aliens, many of whom are U.S. born, and for emergency medical treatment. But it is a responsible step in the right direction.

    Reducing these costs requires the administration to actually enforce existing immigration laws, complete border fencing, allow states to participate in the enforcement process, and otherwise deny benefits and incentives to illegal aliens.

    2. Pass E-Verify and Create Jobs for Americans

    Unemployment is at its highest level in 27 years, yet illegal aliens continue to stream in seeking jobs. While 25 million Americans are either looking for work, underemployed or have become discouraged and given up, 7 million jobs are occupied by illegal aliens.

    Passing H.R. 2164 would make E-Verify mandatory in all 50 states and would ensure that future workers are legal workers. Passing the Senate version (S.1196) would require that existing employees are also checked for legal status, thereby opening up many of the 7 million jobs held by illegal aliens. In an economy that added an anemic 18,000 jobs last months, allowing American workers to fill existing ones is essential.

    Moreover, when jobs are denied to illegal aliens, wages increase to attract legal workers and taxes are paid – not just by a few but by all and Uncle Sam is happy.

    3. Reduce Legal Immigration – Time Out

    After more than 40 years of sustained high levels of immigration, America needs a time out on legal immigration while we formulate new policies that reflect the realities of the 21st century.

    Fewer than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. Most are admitted because of family ties to earlier immigrants, many of whom are living in poverty or near poverty. As a result, immigration bloats an already-existing surplus of low-skilled workers, increasing job competition and driving down wages for American workers.

    4. Immigration Policy Is Economic Policy

    What once was can no longer be. While the U.S. is exporting jobs overseas it continues to import millions of low-skilled and government-subsidized legal immigrants. Laws are not being enforced against the estimated 13 million illegal immigrants already here.

    In addition, hundreds of thousands of additional foreign guest workers are admitted each year to accommodate the demands of business interests that simply prefer to hire foreign workers over local legal U.S. residents.

    If lawmakers are sincere about putting all options on the table to fix our mounting fiscal crisis, they must acknowledge the need to reform immigration. Enforcing laws against illegal immigration, reducing flows of legal immigration to more sensible levels, and ending foreign guest worker programs would open up jobs for Americans, increase wages, and reduce taxpayer burdens by the billions at a time when we need it the most.

    Contact your Reps NOW: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #6
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Why Is Cost of Illegal Immigration Ignored In Debt Ceiling Debate?
    By Bob Dane Published July 18, 2011


    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...#ixzz1SW4aCbGE

    While the debt ceiling debate rages and Congress is busy haggling over who should be taxed and what programs should be slashed, they’ve promised to consider all options except …one.

    Lawmakers have chosen to forget that immigration is a discretionary social policy that by definition is designed to be adjusted to serve the nation’s broad national interest, particularly during difficult economic times. This discretionary policy is a powerful economic tool, but only if it is brought out and used.

    No comprehensive financial fix can be complete without Congress demanding increased enforcement against illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration to sustainable levels. Reforming immigration would tighten the labor market, open up jobs for legal U.S. residents, and reduce the overall fiscal strain that immigration imposes on health care, education and other social services.

    Doing so is an urgent mandate and a legitimate, justified use of policy.

    If not now, then when?

    Here are four ways that Congress could get to work… now!

    1. Increase Enforcement and Reduce Costs


    American taxpayers spend $113 billion annually subsidizing illegal immigration and padding the pockets of businesses addicted to cheap labor. Taxpayers at the state and local levels bear the brunt, providing $84 billion in services annually while the federal government spends $29 billion. The latter figure is – incidentally -- almost exactly equal to the interest payment on the total federal debt this past April. Of course, the debt continues to grow uncontrollably because the government must borrow to keep up with, among other things, the growing cost of illegal immigration.

    In some states, reducing the fiscal burden of illegal immigration would represent nothing short of an economic miracle:

    - California’s budget deficit is $28 billion yet the state spends $21.8 billion subsidizing illegal immigration, or 75% of their total deficit.

    - Massachusetts could almost clear their books by ending illegal alien subsidies; the state’s deficit is $2 billion while their annual cost of illegal immigration is $1.86 billion.

    - Maryland and New York would enjoy much needed surpluses; those state’s expenditures on illegal immigration actually exceed their deficits!

    The savings can’t be realized overnight because much of the expense is mandated by law requiring the education of the children of illegal aliens, many of whom are U.S. born, and for emergency medical treatment. But it is a responsible step in the right direction.

    Reducing these costs requires the administration to actually enforce existing immigration laws, complete border fencing, allow states to participate in the enforcement process, and otherwise deny benefits and incentives to illegal aliens.

    2. Pass E-Verify and Create Jobs for Americans

    Unemployment is at its highest level in 27 years, yet illegal aliens continue to stream in seeking jobs. While 25 million Americans are either looking for work, underemployed or have become discouraged and given up, 7 million jobs are occupied by illegal aliens.

    Passing H.R. 2164 would make E-Verify mandatory in all 50 states and would ensure that future workers are legal workers. Passing the Senate version (S.1196) would require that existing employees are also checked for legal status, thereby opening up many of the 7 million jobs held by illegal aliens. In an economy that added an anemic 18,000 jobs last months, allowing American workers to fill existing ones is essential.

    Moreover, when jobs are denied to illegal aliens, wages increase to attract legal workers and taxes are paid – not just by a few but by all and Uncle Sam is happy.

    3. Reduce Legal Immigration – Time Out

    After more than 40 years of sustained high levels of immigration, America needs a time out on legal immigration while we formulate new policies that reflect the realities of the 21st century.

    Fewer than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. Most are admitted because of family ties to earlier immigrants, many of whom are living in poverty or near poverty. As a result, immigration bloats an already-existing surplus of low-skilled workers, increasing job competition and driving down wages for American workers.

    4. Immigration Policy Is Economic Policy

    What once was can no longer be. While the U.S. is exporting jobs overseas it continues to import millions of low-skilled and government-subsidized legal immigrants. Laws are not being enforced against the estimated 13 million illegal immigrants already here.

    In addition, hundreds of thousands of additional foreign guest workers are admitted each year to accommodate the demands of business interests that simply prefer to hire foreign workers over local legal U.S. residents.

    If lawmakers are sincere about putting all options on the table to fix our mounting fiscal crisis, they must acknowledge the need to reform immigration. Enforcing laws against illegal immigration, reducing flows of legal immigration to more sensible levels, and ending foreign guest worker programs would open up jobs for Americans, increase wages, and reduce taxpayer burdens by the billions at a time when we need it the most.

    Contact your Reps NOW: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Jolie Rouge For This Useful Post:

    malewis (07-19-2011)

  9. #7
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Cut, Cap & Balance Veto Threat
    12:31 pm July 18, 2011, by Jamie Dupree

    http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-wa...e-veto-threat/

    The White House has issued a formal veto threat against the Republican "Cut, Cap and Balance" budget plan, which will be voted on in the House on Tuesday.

    Here is the release from the White House, with the formal veto threat language at the end:

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

    July 18, 2011

    STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

    H. R. 2560 – Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011

    (Rep. Chaffetz, R-UT, and 87 cosponsors)


    The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2560, the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011.” Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility. Increasing the Federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a Federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions. Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.



    The bill would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future. H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future. It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.



    Furthermore, H. R. 2560 could require even deeper cuts, since it conditions an increase in the Federal debt limit on Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. H. R. 2560 sets out a false and unacceptable choice between the Federal Government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.



    The President has proposed a comprehensive and balanced framework that ensures we live within our means and reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, while supporting economic growth and long-term job creation, protecting critical investments, and meeting the commitments made to provide economic security to Americans no matter their circumstances. H.R. 2560 is inconsistent with this responsible framework to restore fiscal responsibility and is not an appropriate method of reducing the Nation’s deficits and debt. The Administration is committed to working with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to achieve real solutions.

    If the President were presented this bill for signature, he would veto it.

    Spending has never solved a budget problem at my house.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #8
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    I checked and re-checked the date on this story to make sure it wasn’t a couple of years old, because nobody could be this stupid now — right? Yeah, I know. I soon came to my senses and remembered who we’re dealing with.

    Believe it or not, the Captain(s) of the Titanic are talking about taking one more run at the iceberg before the ship goes under:

    Senate Democrats seek new economic stimulus
    By Richard Cowan Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:38pm EDT [/i]

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday called on Vice President Joe Biden to include new economic stimulus spending in deficit-reduction talks as a way of lowering the 9.1 percent jobless rate that is hobbling the economic recovery.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the proposal to the White House, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democratic senator, told reporters. "The Republicans are fixating on the budget deficit and it's a serious problem," Durbin said.

    But citing the conclusions of a presidential deficit-cutting commission that he served on last year, Durbin added, "Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit cutting mode ... get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

    A senior Democratic aide said the job-creation idea Senate Democrats are now pursuing represented a pivot in the deficit-reduction negotiations. He said the idea presented to the White House has three components to help create jobs: new infrastructure spending, a payroll tax cut and support for clean energy jobs. He did not say how large the infrastructure spending proposal would be. In 2009, President Barack Obama won enactment of an $814 billion economic stimulus that Republicans opposed as wasteful spending.

    The aide said the White House appeared to support extending the current payroll tax cut for employees, although there has been discussion on Capitol Hill of also expanding that tax cut to employers. Biden is to return to the Senate on Wednesday for another meeting with the bipartisan group of lawmakers looking for ways to significantly reduce deficits. A deep cut in spending -- in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade -- is a Republican requirement for allowing a vote to increase U.S. borrowing authority that is hitting up against a $14.3 trillion limit.

    The group is facing an August 2 deadline for resolving the debt limit problem and thinks that it needs to make some decisions within the next few days in order to give the Senate and House of Representatives enough time to write and pass spending cut and debt limit legislation. Durbin told reporters he thought that effort could become a "two-step" process containing a "serious down payment on the deficit" followed by more work on long-term savings. "We're just not going to be able to accomplish (all of) it by August 2," Durbin said.

    The Biden group has aimed to raise borrowing authority by enough to get through 2012 and next year's presidential and congressional elections. "I hope Vice President Biden can get an agreement that takes us through the election. I don't know if he can," Durbin said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75L4SZ20110622





    comments

    Biden said the idea presented to the White House has three components to help create jobs: “new infrastructure spending, a payroll tax cut and support for clean energy jobs”.

    Its as if these guys are on a merry-go-round and havent learned a thing over the last few years.

    First, infrastructure spending is temporary, and we need full time jobs in “for-profit” industry. When the infrastructure is built, the machinery and jobs are gone. It does not solve long term unemployment, and as government funded projects, usually go to a small group of skilled, union employees which does nothing for the average Joe.

    Second, a reduction in the payroll tax will have next to zero effect. What business needs is a massive reduction in the incomprehensible, convoluted and contradictory regulations they are trying to operate in. Start by shelving the mess called Obamacare.

    Third, we don’t need “clean energy” jobs, we need JOBS! Clean energy is a limited market, with a high level of risk, totally dependent on on continuous government funding. It is NOT a source of solid middle class working Joe employment.

    Biden, Obama and the clowns in the White House have no clue what the economy needs to help the average person. Time to vote these incompetent jokers back to the ‘hood in Chicago before they cause any more damage to the economy.

    ~~~

    Looks like a sad case of intellectual inbreeding to me.

    And like all inbreeding, the longer it goes on the worse the outcome.

    Time to fire all these “experts” and give them nice honest jobs. Something like cleaning out a cow barn with a tooth brush sounds about right.

    At least when they were done the finally would be experts in bovine feces distribution.

    Right now they are all so dense they forget that you don’t have to be a farmer to smell bull****e…

    ~~~

    Chip-Away – the private sector is trying to create jobs. However, it’s the Administration that has undermined them every step of the way. First, we have an illegal drilling moratorium being imposed by Obama and the EPA. The courts have found this to be unconstitutional, but Obama has his cabinet members continuing it. Then we have Boeing opening a plant in South Carolina, but are being sued by the NLRB. Why? Because this somehow, in their minds, will be taking jobs out of Washington state. Boeing has increased their workforce there and improved their facilities, so that argument is unfounded. Then we have the EPA looking to shut down coal companies. As Obama said as a candidate, “If you want to own a coal company, go ahead. You’ll go bankrupt.” I guess that’s a great meme to job creation in this country.
    People need to remember that the world has changed. Companies will move out of America if the government becomes too demanding.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #9
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Debt Debate Question Fail of the Day
    By Doug Powers • July 20, 2011 03:46 PM

    This is almost as funny as the time MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer referred to Jesse Jackson as “Reverend Al Sharpton” (I heard Contessa had to boycott BP for three weeks before Jesse would forgive her).

    This time around, Brewer was questioning Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks on the debt issue and attempted to discredit his qualifications for arguing the topic by asking condescendingly, “Do you have a degree in economics?”

    You’ve probably already guessed what the answer is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mtQy...layer_embedded

    You can tell by the look on her face the question wasn’t out of mere curiosity, but an attempted intellectual smackdown that ended up going hilariously awry.

    Ed Morrissey at Hot Air adds…

    Brooks actually has three degrees: political science, economics, and law. As a lawyer, Brooks would have been experienced enough not to make Brewer’s mistake in a cross-examination, which is to ask a question without first knowing the answer. Not only that, but Brewer was being flat-out rude as well as foolish; MSNBC invited Brooks to appear to get his perspective on the issues. If their hosts respond by belittling them (whether it backfires or not), what does that say about MSNBC, its management, and the kind of invitations they make?

    Since Brewer made an issue out of having an economics degree before engaging in economics debates, she must have a doctorate in the subject herself, right? Not exactly. According to her Wikipedia entry, Brewer has a baccalaureate in broadcast journalism (magna cum laude). Apparently they didn’t teach interviewing skills at Syracuse, or logic either, as a requisite for the degree.
    The economy we’re witnessing was designed in part by people with degrees in economics — many of whom are now scurrying back behind the protective walls of academia — so being in possession of an economics degree obviously doesn’t automatically equate to solutions that make sense in the real world.

    But in this case, Rep. Brooks put his degree to excellent use.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #10
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    July 21, 2011
    Gang of Six plan is "terrible"


    http://www.punditandpundette.com/201...-terrible.html

    Keith Hennessey lists 17 reasons why he's opposed to the Gang of Six plan. Reason number 6 is enough for me
    http://keithhennessey.com/2011/07/21...e-gang-of-six/

    [IMG]It trades a permanent tax increase for only a temporary respite on spending.[/IMG]


    And that's the way it always works. The tax increases are real, always more substantial and enduring than they first appear, and the cuts are shifting mirages which recede further into the distance the closer you approach them. Read the rest.

    James Capretta calls the Gang of Six plan "the worst plan so far." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...mes-c-capretta Which means -- it's got legs! How bad is it?

    But now, along comes the Gang of Six plan, and some Republicans are apparently intrigued by it. They shouldn’t be. It’s a terrible, terrible plan. It will hand the president a huge strategic victory and deliver nothing that the GOP should be seeking in this fight. It’s far, far worse than anything we have seen thus far, and certainly much worse than the McConnell plan. [. . .]

    In short, the Gang of Six has essentially offered a plan in which Republicans would hand over control of the budget process to Democratic senators and hope for the best. Enough said.
    Read his piece for the gruesome details. I can't believe any remotely responsible person would give it the time of day. But of course, this is Washington DC, where reason and reality are routinely turned on their heads.

    Along those lines, here's George Neumayr on how the liberal media effortlessly manipulate the debt debate by calling black white and up down: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...ent-president#

    The politicians most responsible for America's debt crisis are portrayed by the media as "grown-ups" while those least responsible for it are dubbed "intransigent." Veteran profligate spenders have been credited in recent days with a "balanced approach" to the crisis, even as Tea Partiers in Congress with no fingerprints on the debt have been cast as recklessly indifferent to it.

    The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.
    Read the rest, especially the last paragraph.

    Just words: You may recall that President Obama declared his absolute opposition to a temporary solution to the debt-ceiling stand-off. He said he'd never sign a temporary solu-- oh . . . never mind. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-term-debt-p/ It's time for him to move on. August is a busy month for the President. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...html?r=topnews

    Read also : There Are No Spending Cuts Without Downsizing Government
    $1.5 trillion from Biden + $3.7 trillion from the Gang = 0. There is no compromise.


    http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2...ng-government/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  13. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in