"Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
that's from the white house press secretary. Obama said "we don't have a spending problem."
now the senate majority leader is encouraging the president to bypass congress on spending and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling without approval? the most fundamental balance of power in the us constitution?
he wants to use executive orders to do gun control, now the debt ceiling. when will people realize he is not what we have become accustomed to as a major party leader? he said we needed to "fundamentally transform" America. not go in one direction or another, not left or right, but radical change. from his own mouth.
well the constitution was set up to prevent radical change above all else, thus the checks and balances. the president can't spend without congressional approval, congress can't legislate without the president signing it unless they have a super majority, the list is endless how the government is set upon itself to prevent the kind of unilateral decrees this president thinks are just fine.
he has no respect for the constitution or the process which it defines. things that no president, left or right, has even considered doing and before he even gets sworn in again he's committing to do it on multiple fronts. Yes the house will block most of what he wants to do. that's how the US process works, that's called democracy. those house members were duly elected as well, and simply ignoring them and passing decrees and making them all go to the courts is the most anti-democratic thing I've seen. not since Lincoln has this been done and that was due to a civil war where half the congress just left the union.
think the gun control thing is somehow OK to do by executive order (a nice way to say decree of the president) and people are making too much of it? how about spending, the fundamental purview of congress?
we have a madman at the wheel who fundamentally believes the ship is flawed and an embarrassment, and we put him there. the constitutional system was put in place to prevent the radical changes he wants to see, so he's just going to ignore it whenever necessary. no attempt at compromise or bipartisanship, none. a man driven by ideology, and one totally antithetical to the reasons this nation was founded.
this wasn't just another election, and those who ignored that are going to get to enjoy the boat ride right along with the rest of us. Just don't blame those who said it was coming.
no doubt most won't, they won't even realize how serious some of this is to our nation. just background noise that interrupts watching jersey shore now and again.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CitizenBBN
this wasn't just another election, and those who ignored that are going to get to enjoy the boat ride right along with the rest of us. Just don't blame those who said it was coming.
no doubt most won't, they won't even realize how serious some of this is to our nation. just background noise that interrupts watching jersey shore now and again.
What's even worse, they won't even care. I suspect that a solid 30% of Obama voters don't have any understanding of even elementary economics and have no plans to learn. Besides, if Obama's governance ends up hurting them in any way, he, the Dems, and the media will tell them it's the R's fault, or more specifically the fault of the evil rich, and they'll gladly believe them.
Our only chance to recover from this mess is if the intelligent non-ideological Democrats wake up and realize that Obama's minions have been lying to them. That's the only way that the makers will wrest away the elections from the takers. Fiscally conservative Republicans, fiscally conservative Democrats, fiscally conservative Libertarians, and fiscally conservative Independents must set aside their differences in social ideologies to turn things around. Until they do, this mess is still gonna pick up speed. An alliance needs to be formed, and I'm not talking about these jokers who want to call themselves "No Labels" or other such nonsense. I'm talking about people who still believe and understand the Constitution, who are committed to balancing a budget, and are willing to separate their personal social beliefs from their governance. Until that happens, we're sunk.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KeithKSR
One word, IMPEACHMENT!
Impeachment must start in the Senate(IIRC), and since that POS Reid is the Senate majority leader, it would never get out of committee. So unless the GOP takes control of the Senate via election wins, the votes are not there.
I may be wrong about the impeachment process, so if I am wrong, somebody please correct & clarify.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
suncat05
Impeachment must start in the Senate(IIRC), and since that POS Reid is the Senate majority leader, it would never get out of committee. So unless the GOP takes control of the Senate via election wins, the votes are not there.
I may be wrong about the impeachment process, so if I am wrong, somebody please correct & clarify.
The impeachment process is the sole responsibility of the House. For instance, it is a fact that Clinton was impeached. The Senate's role is to vote to determine whether the impeached person will be convicted and removed from office.
From Wiki:
The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer. This may include the impeachment of the vice president, although legal theories suggest that allowing a defendant to be the judge in his own case would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of anyone besides the President), the duties would fall to the President pro tempore of the Senate.
To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. Conviction by the Senate does not bar criminal prosecution. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Even though it would be hard to get a 2/3 majority should Obama move forward with plans to bypass the House he would give them little choice but to bring the articles of impeachment up for a vote. It may be the only way to reign him in, and what is being proposed he do through executive order cannot be allowed without endangering our entire governmental system.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Impeachment is pie in the sky. The clowns in the senate and house love spending money as much as the white house. They just have different things they like to spend it on.
Re: "Deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself."
Okay CW, thanks for the clarification. I'm a little rusty in the "civics" department. I knew the Senate had a role in the process, just wasn't sure where and how it all got started. Again, thanks!
