Government Shutdown

[Fuzzy]

Martial Law coming soon?

 

http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/18/watch-fema-dhs-386000-foreign-troops-now-on-u-s-soil-obama-issuing-martial-law-in-october/

[strigori]

The people who are downplaying the shutdown do have a fair point I think. It's childlessly unnecessary, but it's something that's happened many times before.

 

The debt ceiling issue that's upcoming - what is it, end of this month?...is what is really worrying.

Oct 17 I think. Only the teabaggers think going over that cliff is a good idea.

[walksalone]

If the gov't really cared about you, wouldn't you have...

 

a) Affordable healthcare

b) Taking care of americans who really need the help

c) Stop taking care of other countries while the well being of our own citizens fall by the wayside.

 

We don't elect presidents, thats left up to electoral college.

 

Since you like putting words in peoples mouths, apparently you're ok with the politicians still getting paid while the gov't is shutdown and they had to vote on whether or not to keep paying our troops?

 

You wrote what you just did because you obviously have an agenda, and care more about blaming the other side than coming up with a suitable solution. I would like to see plenty of problems fixed, but with the way our gov't is currently operated, it's not going to happen... We've had sh*t leaders for years and years, and it's not looking like it's going to get any better...

 

Save your high and mightiness for somebody else that gives a damn...

 

No, I'm not ok with Congress receiving pay during the shutdown. Not OK with that at all. You are right about one thing... I do have an agenda. My agenda is that the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by the United States Congress, signed into law by the President of the United States, and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court should be implemented as written. That, and the congressional Republicans should stop holding our country hostage for their stupid games of "I want to be a 2016 candidate!" (see: Cruz, Ted)

 

I'd be more butthurt that these jackasses are getting paid to disagree about something that they could care less about, and feigning concern for the American people (unless your forking out money for a donation). The American media is telling you who to hate, why you should, all the while not even giving you anything that could be remotely construed as a solution. There's so much "us vs them" that it's blinded the American public, and turned average people in to raving douchebage, if you don't agree with their agenda...

[zoogs]

I'm struggling to understand why it's even possible for the government to go over the fiscal cliff. Can't we take some things out of the hands of the politicians, like things as essential as the debt ceiling? I'm sure there is a good reason, but...

 

And I agree, Congress should not be paid while the government is shut down. Another incentive for them to get it straightened out.

[Whistlebritches]

This is going to be vague because it's late and I'm tired but......I've heard mention that the President can sign an executive order to raise the debt ceiling and it looks like it may come to that.

[krill]

I think you guys are a little confused, which is hardly surprising considering no one besides politicians and c-span junkies probably want to keep up with the monthly crisis in government. October 1st is the beginning of the fiscal year for the federal government, and congress is supposed to pass a budget to appropriate funds for the year. Without that only essential services will be automatically funded. Because our congress has not been able to function at a very basic level, most of the budgets since 2006 (?) have not been budgets at all, the government has been funded by a series of continuing resolutions that simply fund the government at previous levels with some tweaks...essentially kicking a can down the road. Now that cannot even be passed.

 

The other crisis have been related to automatic cuts that came into effect (sequestration) in previous negotiations, and separate votes on raising the deficit ceiling. So, not to worry, by the time this crisis is "solved" we'll be due up for another. The continuing resolutions can be for any amount of time, a day, a month, a year I think at most. That's why these battles have been happening with alarming regularity, because they can't even pass a normal budget for a full year, or do CR's without poison pills like the sequestration business, and what Republicans want now with a litany of conditions beyond delaying the ACA for a year.

 

At least that's my understanding of the situation.

[AR Husker Fan]

This is going to be vague because it's late and I'm tired but......I've heard mention that the President can sign an executive order to raise the debt ceiling and it looks like it may come to that.

 

It's a question that's never been definitively answered. Those who argue that the President can't raise the debt ceiling through Executive Order most often argue that it would be an violation of the Separation of Powers and an intrusion on Congress' ability to tax and spend. However, while the Congress clearly has authority to raise the debt ceiling, it does not follow that ONLY Congress may do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard one case that addresses the issue under the 14th Amendment. That was Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935), in which the Supreme Court stated, "The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States ... Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations."

 

In other words, if Congress has incurred debt by approving spending (which is the case, of course) above the level of revenue, Congress cannot act in a manner to prevent those debts being paid. So, at least arguably, if the President raises the debt ceiling through Executive Order, it would be constitutional as the obligation to pay the debt is paramount and beyond Congressional control.

 

Having said all that, it's still an open question - meaning, no court decisions directly on point.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

This is going to be vague because it's late and I'm tired but......I've heard mention that the President can sign an executive order to raise the debt ceiling and it looks like it may come to that.

 

It's a question that's never been definitively answered. Those who argue that the President can't raise the debt ceiling through Executive Order most often argue that it would be an violation of the Separation of Powers and an intrusion on Congress' ability to tax and spend. However, while the Congress clearly has authority to raise the debt ceiling, it does not follow that ONLY Congress may do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard one case that addresses the issue under the 14th Amendment. That was Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935), in which the Supreme Court stated, "The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States ... Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations."

 

In other words, if Congress has incurred debt by approving spending (which is the case, of course) above the level of revenue, Congress cannot act in a manner to prevent those debts being paid. So, at least arguably, if the President raises the debt ceiling through Executive Order, it would be constitutional as the obligation to pay the debt is paramount and beyond Congressional control.

 

Having said all that, it's still an open question - meaning, no court decisions directly on point.

*mouth breaths while reading this*

 

 

This could get interesting...............

[carlfense]

This is going to be vague because it's late and I'm tired but......I've heard mention that the President can sign an executive order to raise the debt ceiling and it looks like it may come to that.

 

It's a question that's never been definitively answered. Those who argue that the President can't raise the debt ceiling through Executive Order most often argue that it would be an violation of the Separation of Powers and an intrusion on Congress' ability to tax and spend. However, while the Congress clearly has authority to raise the debt ceiling, it does not follow that ONLY Congress may do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard one case that addresses the issue under the 14th Amendment. That was Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935), in which the Supreme Court stated, "The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States ... Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations."

 

In other words, if Congress has incurred debt by approving spending (which is the case, of course) above the level of revenue, Congress cannot act in a manner to prevent those debts being paid. So, at least arguably, if the President raises the debt ceiling through Executive Order, it would be constitutional as the obligation to pay the debt is paramount and beyond Congressional control.

 

Having said all that, it's still an open question - meaning, no court decisions directly on point.

If this happens . . . impeachment proceedings won't be far behind. Never mind the logic or the necessity . . . there's crazy that must be sated.

 

If it comes to it I'd vote for minting the coin.

[carlfense]

There is no chance of the debt ceiling not being raised. None. But I'm all for hostage taking, preferably hostages that will freak out the stock market for a couple days and put the pressure on a president not particularly known for his resolve. That's just good strategy for achieving policy aims. Actually shooting the hostage and forcing the country into default? Of course I don't support that, and neither does 90%+ of the House GOP (neither did Senator Obama), but saying that out loud undermines the credibility of the threat.

This is your GOP, people.

[carlfense]

 

From the Washington Post:

 

You Redditor.

[carlfense]

The people who are downplaying the shutdown do have a fair point I think. It's childlessly unnecessary, but it's something that's happened many times before.

 

The debt ceiling issue that's upcoming - what is it, end of this month?...is what is really worrying.

This is correct.

[Junior]

I've never been more angry than after reading this. I'm so sick of this F*&Sing grandstanding and playing games with people's lives. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, every life is precious as long as it is in the womb. Once it is actually born, apparently the Republican leadership thinks it can go fend for itself. Disgusting.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/10/02/government-shutdown-9-million-moms-and-babies-at-risk-as-wic-program-halts/

 

On Tuesday, the government stopped funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC.

 

Over 8.9 million moms and kids under five living near or below the poverty line rely on the program’s supplemental vouchers for healthy food, breastfeeding support, infant formula and other necessities dispensed at clinics nationwide.

[Junior]

If the gov't really cared about you, wouldn't you have...

 

a) Affordable healthcare

b) Taking care of americans who really need the help

c) Stop taking care of other countries while the well being of our own citizens fall by the wayside.

 

We don't elect presidents, thats left up to electoral college.

 

Since you like putting words in peoples mouths, apparently you're ok with the politicians still getting paid while the gov't is shutdown and they had to vote on whether or not to keep paying our troops?

 

You wrote what you just did because you obviously have an agenda, and care more about blaming the other side than coming up with a suitable solution. I would like to see plenty of problems fixed, but with the way our gov't is currently operated, it's not going to happen... We've had sh*t leaders for years and years, and it's not looking like it's going to get any better...

 

Save your high and mightiness for somebody else that gives a damn...

 

No, I'm not ok with Congress receiving pay during the shutdown. Not OK with that at all. You are right about one thing... I do have an agenda. My agenda is that the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by the United States Congress, signed into law by the President of the United States, and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court should be implemented as written. That, and the congressional Republicans should stop holding our country hostage for their stupid games of "I want to be a 2016 candidate!" (see: Cruz, Ted)

 

I'd be more butthurt that these jackasses are getting paid to disagree about something that they could care less about, and feigning concern for the American people (unless your forking out money for a donation). The American media is telling you who to hate, why you should, all the while not even giving you anything that could be remotely construed as a solution. There's so much "us vs them" that it's blinded the American public, and turned average people in to raving douchebage, if you don't agree with their agenda...

 

Funny, I thought it was the job of Congress to give us alternatives. I wasn't aware the media governed.

[HuskerLuke]

This is your GOP, people.

It was your Democrats when they were out of power, that was the point of my post. There's nothing new under the sun in American politics and to pretend otherwise is either naivete or disingenuous partisan hackery.

 

Anyway a couple of new things today.

 

The White House and the Department of the Interior rejected a request from Rep. Steven Palazzo’s office to have World War II veterans visit the World War II memorial in Washington, the Mississippi Republican told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

Utterly disgraceful. The WWII monument is scenery not a building. They had to put up - and man - barricades to keep people out. Total political theater - the Memorial is open 24/7, regardless of whether it's staffed or not......unless the White House is trying to make things look as bad as possible, of course.

 

In other news, I'm guessing private Democratic polling on the shutdown isn't quite what Obama was hoping for.