Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm honestly curious... which case was that?

Perry v. United States. (No, it didn't deal specifically with the debt ceiling or the authority of the president. What it did deal with was the Government failing to pay it's bills).

Under the 14th Amendment the US cannot default on it's debts. As the President is ultimately, charged with enforcing the laws, to uphold that one, he could issue a PO to the effect that the Treasury (as head of the executive branch, the Treasury broadly falls under his authority) could borrow enough money to pay the governments outstanding obligations. He just can't write any 'new' spending.

Even the WH's counsel rejected that option...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-01/white-house-rejects-14th-amendment-to-raise-debt-ceiling.html

Should the debt limit be reached, the least problematic option for the President is to prioritize debt payments over other spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, talk to wall street in a few days. Its already sliding because of this nonsense. I'm sure you realize how fragile our economy is right now, this is exactly what we don't need. The aca has already been negotiated and passed into law! This is insanity on the part of the Republicans. I'm so glad I ran away from the republican party years and years ago. They have absolutely no connection to the real world.

Not how I look at this... the House drafted numerous proposal. It's the Senate/Prez saying "no".

 whembly wrote:
That this is the first shutdown in which one side -- Reid/Obama -- has simply refused to negotiate at all.

Many posters have explained to you many times why the House Republicans are not actually compromising/negotiating. At this point, I can only advise to read the dozens of posts already answering you.

Well the party who puts forth the first draft for discussion can't exactly engage in any compromise.

The first draft just says "this is a stick up."

So?

The Senate could have sent something back that gave some of what the House wanted, or even made their own demands. It could have even been just a tiny little bit. But they didn't.

Even if your opponent is making "unreasonable" demands in your opinion you can attempt to make it more reasonable. The House's demands were lessened and lessened but the Senate kept utterly rejecting them.

And no, the analogy of a Hostage situation doesn't compare to this at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if your opponent is making "unreasonable" demands in your opinion you can attempt to make it more reasonable.

Fine. Let's negotiate on that principal right now. I'll start: give me everything that you own. Your turn.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And no, the analogy of a Hostage situation doesn't compare to this at all.

Yeah, actually it's a very fitting analogy.

 Manchu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even if your opponent is making "unreasonable" demands in your opinion you can attempt to make it more reasonable.

Fine. Let's negotiate on that principal right now. I'll start: give me everything that you own. Your turn.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And no, the analogy of a Hostage situation doesn't compare to this at all.

Yeah, actually it's a very fitting analogy.

Well, given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage, i'd say maybe your onto something, but your walking the wrong path.

Again a bad analogy, but I'll play along.

No, how about I give you 25% of what I own and you give me 25% of what you own.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That this is the first shutdown in which one side -- Reid/Obama -- has simply refused to negotiate at all.

Many posters have explained to you many times why the House Republicans are not actually compromising/negotiation. At this point, I can only advise to read the dozens of posts already answering you.

Well then, I can only advise to read what I posted to see where I'm coming from.

You can claim all you want that '12 was a referendum that Obama and Reid/Senate (D) when they won their re-election. The idea that Reid/Obama is under no obligation to negotiate with the House because they “won” is asinine.

Truth of the matter, the GOP controls the House.... Reid/Obama needs to comes to grips with that.

So far, both Reid and Obama are the ones saying "no".

 djones520 wrote:
given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage

How is a law passed by the legislature, upheld by the judiciary, and carried out by the executive holding America hostage? By contrast, the House Republicans are saying "give us what we want or we will force a government shutdown." I think you're having trouble with analogical reasoning.

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage

How is a law passed by the legislature, upheld by the judiciary, and carried out by the executive holding America hostage? By contrast, the House Republicans are saying "give us what we want or we will force a government shutdown." I think you're having trouble with analogical reasoning.

The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

 whembly wrote:
You can claim all you want that '12 was a referendum ...

I'm not and I didn't.

What I am saying is that the a delay on implementation is not a compromise. I have already explained why.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage

How is a law passed by the legislature, upheld by the judiciary, and carried out by the executive holding America hostage? By contrast, the House Republicans are saying "give us what we want or we will force a government shutdown." I think you're having trouble with analogical reasoning.

The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

To be 100% correct, everybody is responsible.

 whembly wrote:
The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

That's like saying a bankrobber is forced to shoot a teller because she won't give him the money.

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
given that the GOP views the ACA has holding America hostage

How is a law passed by the legislature, upheld by the judiciary, and carried out by the executive holding America hostage? By contrast, the House Republicans are saying "give us what we want or we will force a government shutdown." I think you're having trouble with analogical reasoning.

If CISPA had passed, become law, etc... and this had happened over it, would you be toeing the same line?

A bad law is a bad law. Just because it's "legal" per the USSC, doesn't mean it is good or right for the US and it's people.

 djones520 wrote:
If CISPA had passed, become law, etc... and this had happened over it, would you be toeing the same line?

YES, absolutely yes. CISPA is a gakky law but brinksmanship politics is not the way to defeat it.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You can claim all you want that '12 was a referendum ...

I'm not and I didn't.

What I am saying is that the a delay on implementation is not a compromise. I have already explained why.

Sure it is... if Obama can peicemeal certain parts of the law at his descretion, then the House can demand the same thing on the other.

In addition, they’ve proven that they’re willing to pass specific bills to keep the pain for the general public to a minimum. They actually sent Democrats reasonable compromises that were voted down. The GOP voted to make politicians in D.C. follow the law while Democrats voted to keep their exemption from Obamacare on the book...

Reid/Obama want an ALL or NOTHING approach. Why? Because they don't want to fething NEGOTIATE anything.

 djones520 wrote:
A bad law is a bad law. Just because it's "legal" per the USSC, doesn't mean it is good or right for the US and it's people.

No one is arguing with that. The point is, no one took America hostage by passing, upholding, and executing the ACA.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

That's like saying a bankrobber is forced to shoot a teller because she won't give him the money.

What is it with you with these absolute binary choices.

No... it's NOT.

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bad law is a bad law. Just because it's "legal" per the USSC, doesn't mean it is good or right for the US and it's people.

No one is arguing with that. The point is, no one took America hostage by passing, upholding, and executing the ACA.

Well, I would disagree. The individual mandate, employer mandate, etc... forcing people to do things against their will...

 whembly wrote:
They actually sent Democrats reasonable compromises that were voted down.

The Republicans haven't offered a single compromise. What you are calling a compromise is not one. We have been over this again and again. Saying "if not defund then just delay" is not a compromise; it's an invitation to the next hostage situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bad law is a bad law. Just because it's "legal" per the USSC, doesn't mean it is good or right for the US and it's people.

No one is arguing with that. The point is, no one took America hostage by passing, upholding, and executing the ACA.

Well, I would disagree. The individual mandate, employer mandate, etc... forcing people to do things against their will...

You have heard of law before right? I mean, law is all about forcing people to do things. But that doesn't mean the law necessarily holds us hostage. That is the very point of democracy.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
They actually sent Democrats reasonable compromises that were voted down.

The Republicans haven't offered a single compromise. What you are calling a compromise is not one. We have been over this again and again. Saying "if not defund then just delay" is not a compromise; it's an invitation to the next hostage situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bad law is a bad law. Just because it's "legal" per the USSC, doesn't mean it is good or right for the US and it's people.

No one is arguing with that. The point is, no one took America hostage by passing, upholding, and executing the ACA.

Well, I would disagree. The individual mandate, employer mandate, etc... forcing people to do things against their will...

You have heard of law before right? I mean, law is all about forcing people to do things. But that doesn't mean the law necessarily holds us hostage. That is the very point of democracy.

Your right, it is. The people didn't want the bill, and don't know. Through democratic actions, they elected Representatives who promised to work to repeal the bill.

So... tell me how this is holding people hostage when our (to include my own) Representatives are doing what we elected them to do.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

That's like saying a bankrobber is forced to shoot a teller because she won't give him the money.

What is it with you with these absolute binary choices.

No... it's NOT.

Sure it is. If it isn't then please explain why. In all these pages across a bunch of threads you haven't been able to do that.

The Republicans said the only way to not shut down government was to defund the ACA. Then they said the only way not to shut down the government was to defund the ACA over time via delay. This is just a stick up. Nothing more and nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So... tell me how this is holding people hostage when our (to include my own) Representatives are doing what we elected them to do.

Did you elect your representative to shut down the government?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The House isn't forcing the shutdown... Reid/Obama said "no".

That's like saying a bankrobber is forced to shoot a teller because she won't give him the money.

What is it with you with these absolute binary choices.

No... it's NOT.

Sure it is. If it isn't then please explain why. In all these pages across a bunch of threads you haven't been able to do that.

GOP passed 50 some odd bill to repeal the ACA... because, that's what was one of the things that got them elected. Reid/Obama said "no".

GOP, then goes, let delay the individual for the year just like the employer mandate. <oh! Look! this is call a comprise> Reid/Obama said "no".

GOP, again, said let's repeal the medical tax and restore the law that forces congress critters back under the exchange as it was originally written. <comprised, again>. Reid/Obama said "no".

And on, and on...

The GOP tried to pass fundings for other departments, piecemeal to reduce the shutdown pain. Reid/Obama said "no".

So... who's the party of "NO" again?

The Republicans said the only way to not shut down government was to defund the ACA. Then they said the only way not to shut down the government was to defund the ACA over time via delay. This is just a stick up. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's your opinion...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So... tell me how this is holding people hostage when our (to include my own) Representatives are doing what we elected them to do.

Did you elect your representative to shut down the government?

What kind of question is that?

 whembly wrote:

Manchu wrote:The Republicans said the only way to not shut down government was to defund the ACA. Then they said the only way not to shut down the government was to defund the ACA over time via delay. This is just a stick up. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's your opinion...

No it isn't. And even if it was, saying as much isn't a counterargument.

 whembly wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So... tell me how this is holding people hostage when our (to include my own) Representatives are doing what we elected them to do.

Did you elect your representative to shut down the government?

What kind of question is that?

A fairly obvious one given his apparent stance. Are people electing these Tea Partiers to shut down the government? Are they electing Tea Partiers because Tea Parties think nothing of shutting down the government on the off-chance of staving off the ACA?

With all the information on government decisions, economy and policy i feel like i need to hire someone just to read it all and blurt it out to me while i work. I feel like the majority of views from the news are all opinionated. I wish there was a source we could get this info quickly, with the important facts and nothing out. Anyone know of anything? Maybe this is why voting has lowered over the years. I don' t know what to think about all this anymore.

Ok, so it's obvious that in your eyes, the Republicans are the only ones at fault.

So... why keep going in circles?

I have a solution guys! We execute every member of the U.S. Congress then call for elections. Each new member of congress will have to swear the oath of office on the gallows their predecessor died on.



I can't see how that WON'T ensure positive growths in duty to the people and standards of behavior in our elected representatives in the future.

 Rotary wrote:
With all the information on government decisions, economy and policy i feel like i need to hire someone just to read it all and blurt it out to me while i work. I feel like the majority of views from the news are all opinionated. I wish there was a source we could get this info quickly, with the important facts and nothing out. Anyone know of anything? Maybe this is why voting has lowered over the years. I don' t know what to think about all this anymore.

Factcheck.org

Just saw this..

The interview was heated from the start, with Roberts claiming Obamacare has a ”mandate by the people reelecting the president and both houses of Congress,” leading Priebus to accuse Roberts of using “talking points.”

“They’re not talking points,” Roberts exclaimed, referring to a speech Obama gave in Maryland moments before the exchange. “That’s directly from what the president just gave a speech on.”