[SeMissourian.com] Light Rain Fog/Mist ~ 49°F  
River stage: 16.83 ft. Rising
Saturday, Dec. 27, 2014
Post reply Read replies (102) More threads Create thread

What Do You Think Of Obama's Proposal to Give Him Exclusive Control of the Debt Limit?
Posted by Mowrangler on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 1:49 PM:

That would be like giving a 6 yo your credit card and turning them loose in Toys R Us.


From the U.S. Constitution:

Article I, Section 8

" The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"

Ergo, giving that power to the President would a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. If the Congress gives in to that demand, they should all be run out of Washington D.C. on a rail.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 1:52 PM

Am I the only one to see similarities between BHO and what's going on in Egypt?

-- Posted by dab1969 on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 2:10 PM


Why not? He has done a fine job so far. He is one of the best fiscally conservative presidents we have had in years. It was Bush that caused the bump in the debt and the housing bubble. If it weren't for Obama god knows what it would be now.

Also I love the way he has gotten everyone working together. He is the man!!!!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 3:07 PM

Part of Obama's $1.7 trillion proposal included mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance again, and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Sounds like a job creator to me.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 3:21 PM


I put my trust in the man who cares. Cares about what I don't know.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 5:10 PM

I still don't get it. How can anyone be serious when proposing deficit reduction by raising taxes to increase revenue, cutting spending to reduce deficits and then adding more spending at the same time?

How and where does raising the debt ceiling fit into a plan to reduce debt?

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 5:48 PM

"Thursday, Geithner proposed a "permanent" increase in the debt ceiling -- meaning changing the law so that Congress no longer has to approve an increase in the statutory borrowing cap, which has been in place since 1917."

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 6:11 PM

I can not believe that charlatan in the White Hoouse would have the nerve and unmitigated gaul to propose that he be given control of the debt limit without oversight by Congress.

I refuse to think Congress would be so unbelievably stupid to give it to him. Not THAT stupid!

-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Dec 4, 2012, at 8:47 PM

Sounds like a great idea, any way to get away from John Banner, Boehner, bonehead,nutcase objections.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 5:54 AM

Heard this ideal the other day and DON'T AGREE with it but let me be the devils advocate. If the Pres had control of the debt ceiling there wouldn't be any problems with the fiscal cliff...just print more money and give it away to all the Blood Sucking Freeloaders who do nothing for this country. He could be on the golf course and authorize to increase the debt ceiling without missing a stroke, now that's an efficient way to run things. Also, the Pres. could bail out more of these solar panel companies and then import them from China. After writing this in support of the Pres' ideal, I'm expecting a little something from him for Christmas. Have a good day, we don't have many left til 12/21.

-- Posted by semo471 on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 8:36 AM

Sounds like a great idea, any way to get away from John Banner, Boehner, bonehead,nutcase objections. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 5:54 AM

More playground name calling from another classic Obama supporter. Why are we not surprised?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 8:40 AM

What has been proposed is that Mr. Obama be given the authority to raise the debt ceiling without a vote from the Congress. The Congress will have the authority to deny the debt limit increase, but only with a 2/3 votes (actually with a simple majority, except that he would have the authority to veto their veto, thus making a 2/3 votes necessary in order to block it).

Another scenario proposed is the so-called 'Lincoln option', which has the President unilaterally overruling the debt limit, extraconstitutionally, citing the Fourteenth Amendment as justification (the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically give the President such power, but it has been suggested that it could be used to justify such purpose). Specifially, they cite this portion of the amendment:

"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."

The problem is, the debt ceiling involves debt not yet incurred, and has nothing to do with the validity of currently-incurred debt. The agreement reached in 2011 that created the 'fiscal cliff' is designed to prevent the accumulation of new debt, not to prevent the payment of extant debt. Thus, the significance of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument of incurring new debt is highly questionable.

I do not know that Mr. Obama has actually suggested that he would try it. It was proposed to him in 2011, and he did not employ it then.

The authority to incur debt is an authority given solely to Congress by the Constitution. The authority to set legal limit thereupon must also rest with them. If the President can unilaterally strip them of such powers, that is tantamount to saying the President can spend without Congressional approval, since such a move would override agreements on spending and borrowing put in place by Congressional approval.

There is no place for tyranny in American government. The 'fiscal cliff' exists to impose automatic changes if the Congress and President fail to come to agreement on other terms. It was agreed upon at the time, and it should stand. If we go over the 'cliff', then so be it. We have all heard that everyone agrees we need tax increases and spending cuts. The 'fiscal cliff' will accomplish that. Let it, if there be no other means of achieving it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 8:58 AM

I think the discussion has began to focuss on loop holes. That if agreed upon will be another one of those have to wait and see what's in it bills.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 12:53 PM





There appears to be no link to the actual proposal itself.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 1:32 PM

Wheels, make him in charge of our debt limit you got to be kidding.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 3:31 PM

It did take a little searching. There is lots of discussion on the proposal, pro and con, and lots of blogs mischaracterizing the proposal, but no link to the proposal itself. I linked the most reliable and (hopefully) factual reports on it. If someone finds an actual link to the proposal itself, please post it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 3:59 PM

But, in a nutshell, Wheels description of it appears rather accurate. The President wants the ability to raise the debt ceiling as he sees fit, with a veto-proof margin necessary to block it. If that happens, it would simply make more sense to do away with the debt ceiling all together.

Depending on how the bill was actually written, it might be useful in the hands of a more fiscally responsible president to block Congressional budgets, assuming that the President would also have the ability not to raise the debt ceiling, with a veto-proof majority required to do so.

Even so, it's not worth having the Congress surrender its power of the purse to the Executive for such a specious hope.

I still find it humourous that the President sends a rich man with a history of not paying his taxes to submit a proposal designed to boost taxes on those rich men who do pay theirs...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 4:05 PM

I still find it humourous that the President sends a rich man with a history of not paying his taxes to submit a proposal designed to boost taxes on those rich men who do pay theirs... -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 4:05 PM


-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 4:19 PM

One of the links I found says the New York Times has a breakdown of the proposal, but I could not find it. They linked the New York Times, but the link just took me to the Times' opinion page.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 4:35 PM

To me , it almost appears as if they promote partisanship ....which in the end , everyone loses , there are no winners...

-- Posted by .Rick Lately on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 4:54 PM

Wrong. Politicians always see to it that they win.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 6:21 PM

I still think it will amount to another back room deal where both sides win and the people lose.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 7:37 PM

You got a source on that?

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 7:40 PM


The horse will enforce my source of course, that's not to say I endorse the horse.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 5, 2012, at 8:47 PM

Ooooooooh Wilbur

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:03 AM

This President is not offering leadership in many ways. The aftermath in the Northeast (Sandy) is one example, Bengazi example two, Willing to go over the fiscal cliff example three, Keystone Pipeline example four, Obamacare example five, Additional two trillion dollar increase on the debt ceiling example six, Fast and Furious example seven, 20 day vacation at a cost of 4 million dollars during a fiscal and foreign crisis example eight. Some Democrats and most Republicans are disgusted with the failed leadership with this President. This is just to name a few I myself want this President to succeed in his second term but up to this point he has shown very weak leadership and that is coming from a conservative democrat and there is plenty more besides me that feel the same way.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:52 AM

"In my mixfusion , the US Constitution has taken a back seat to politics for the past 8 or so years."

More like for the past 150 years...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 8:19 AM

Would a purge of congress and Obama stepping down help? Emerson, Dement..who's next?

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 9:51 AM

Make that DeMint.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 9:59 AM

BC, Rick V - your thoughts on Jim Demint?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 10:05 AM

So he is a republican but one that you support because he is more libertarian / true conservative. I agree and that's why I think "ideology" (probably not the right term) is much more important than party.

Where you and I separate IMO is I see one *possible* way to turn the country around is to deal with the system we have and push for more libertarian/conservatives in any party. I'm not at the secession point yet but I could be close.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 11:33 AM

Well, there's one thing for certain in this crazy irrational world...Fools will continue to do foolish things. For example, the recent election.

-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 12:09 PM

Mitch McConnell (R) tried to bring OBAMA'S proposal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" to a vote in the US Senate. Harry Reid stopped the vote because Obama's proposal wouldn't even pass in the Senate!

Common, Spaniard - you there? Reasoning? Hello all you liberal "progressive" Obama supporters? You lay blame on Republicans yet Obama's "fiscal cliff" proposal wouldn't even pass a vote by DEMOCRATS.

Are you all that far-left that you've even left the democrats in the Senate?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 12:56 PM

There are four main factors driving long-term federal spending - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. Unless you rein them in, you're not going to get a handle on spending.

Mr. Obama's proposals do nothing to rein them in.


-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 2:06 PM

Curious the "Silence of the Lambs" - Obama's very outspoken supporters of all-things-Obama before the election. With the democrat senate even rejecting his fiscal cliff offering yesterday it appears supporters are hiding in shame... as I predicted before the election. If he won and things went bad they would vaporize.

Common? Spaniard? far-left? Reasoning? Kcknown? Theorist? username1? Any other takers? I would hide in shame too if I voted for a man who is proving to be all style and no substance.

Maybe I should include two movie titles - "Silence of the Lambs" and "Gone with the Wind" :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 2:13 PM

- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 3:36 PM

Dinesh is an excellent speaker because he is so principled. It's easy to debate and speak when you're mind isn't reeling with talking points and public surveys - or a teleprompter. He reminds me of WIlliam F. Buckley. Very clear and to the point - although Buckley was a little in the clouds for many folk with his speaking. Dinesh's example of the wagon and the pullers is perfect.

Thanks for sharing that!

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 3:59 PM

Another good one.

How much does the Obama's cost us a year? $1.4 billion.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:30 PM

Wheels, When I watched the link/debate you posted, I couldn't help but expect to see some pregnant gal with three kids in tow jump up and say, Well I'm a single mom and ....."

I still think when it comes to insurance, if employers didn't offer it and governmnent gave a direct tax deduction to the individual, the price would come down so that working folks could buy there own; wages might reflect a positive too.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:32 PM

There all quitting they are fed up with the daily fighting and bickering life is to short for that crap every day. We are a Nation in complete frozen grid lock right now.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:46 PM

Many people that once didn't cost us a dime for insurance and paid for a lot of the unpaid hospital cost is going to be put on the Obama plan as a cost saving measure. I guess that was figured in also.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:55 PM

Swamp, Maybe some see the chance of getting their name on a $100m bridge or some other shrine to their political greatness waning to the point they might as well get in the private sector and petition the government for more attainable spoils. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 6:59 PM

BC, I agree the first purpose of the health care act has nothing to do with medical costs or health care.

Some one once said what America needs is a good 5cent cigar. I say what America needs is a good community organizer of old fashioned conservatitism.

I have witnessed so many young hard working folks claim not to be into to all that political crap. All the same they voted Obama as not to betray the loyalties that are expected of them. But then again when the subject of government welfare in the form of free phones or plastic cards for groceries comes up, these folks get livid in their displeasure of working double shifts and two jobs to fund these fools. I can't wait for a chance to stir the puddin about the free heating gas sign up.

Most of what so many that don't have time to follow current events, nor can because of time devoted to social media think republicans want to take away grandma's social security and take away their free college loans.

What we need is a good conservative community organizer!

[Tounge in cheek]

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 7:25 PM

Oh, and I forgot to mention the ire stirred concerning drug testing for welafare. It goes like this: "If I gotta get drug tested to work for a money, them people need to get tested to sit on their butts for money!"

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 8:34 PM

BC, I think the only thing we don't agree on in that respect is that I was thinking a more conservative liberal president might lead to a more conservative leaning all around. The state's trend toward fascism and the public's acceptance and embrace of the welfare society is too deep seated to stop the handbasket we are in. I still think there is hope for a slower handbasket in a slightly different direction.

Giving up on one's principles and accepting defeat is not what nurtured the rugged individualism that made ours a great country.

My opinion only

I could be wrong though.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 9:53 PM

BC, I think whether the dead guys would approve is not relevant with most voters today. My most beloved friend that has a picture of Obama hanging from her ID badge had never heard of the guy [Marx] that originated the Forward slogan. When I tried to explain she said that was a George Bush lie.:)

The general public excluding the die hard well trained supporters of what you point are a lost cause.

In my thinking a concerted effort of education and back to reality concerning the parable of the wolves and the sheep discussing what's for dinner should be continued.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 6, 2012, at 11:08 PM


The term really has no meaning. While there are those who count themselves under the label (former liberals that support militarism and a token level of states' rights), It has become a catch-all phrase used by libertarians, liberals, and others to denigrate those who would not abolish immediately the enttitlement system (throwing Granny off the cliff) and abrogate America's military authority.

Anyone displaying a modicum of restraint in the elimination of such programmes as Social Security and Medicare is branded 'neoconservative' by them.

President Bush sought to shift Social Security towards a privatized system gradually, beginning with those under the age of 50 (at that time, the oldest of them would be 56 now). A rational approach that does not threaten the system or harm those currently dependent upon the system. This approach was seen as too radical by the liberals, as it would end governmental dependence, but was branded 'neoconservative' by the libertarians because it would not end it soon enough.

Mr. Bush did suffer from liberal tendencies, sometimes known as pragmatism, in the creation of Medicare Part D. He was running against an opponent (Al Gore) that wanted to create a government-funded system to provide prescription drugs for senior citizens. The public seemed to favour such a system, so Mr. Bush proposed a public-private system to both placate the masses that wanted such a programme, and the individualists that opposed such a federally-funded system. The result was a 'compromise' that gave both some of what they wanted but gave neither all they wanted.

The result was a government-subsidized programme run by private insurance. Enrollees pay premiums for the plan, but the costs are underwritten by the government to keep the cost of the plan lower. As a result, it is an expansion of entitlements, the bane of conservatives and libertarians, and it is federally-supported. On the other hand, it is run by private insurance (the bane of liberals) and it is at least partially paid for by individual premiums.

This, of course, makes him 'neoconservative' in the eyes of his detractors, because he favoured an expansion of entitlements. In their eyes, to be a true conservative he needed to oppose any expansion of government and, like Ron Paul, be a principled loser rather than a pragmatic winner.

I'm not a big fan of 'compromise' at is defined today. At the same time, I realize that winning elections and slowing the growth of government is preferable to losing elections to those who see no limits upon federal power, as was the case with Al Gore. Mr. Bush was not perfect, but he was preferable to either of his general-election opponents.

I would love to see a president who will actually reduce the size of government and reduce actual entitlements, but such a candidate will never win an election in today's climate. Rather, we have to accept those that will slow the growth of entitlements and, hopefully, find the favour to reduce them gradually until future generations shake off the dependence that current generations have grown to accept.

Mr. Bush showed that you can touch the 'third rail of politics', Social Security reform, and survive an election. His political pillorying was, in my opinion, as much over that as over the wars - the left was not content merely to sideline the proposal, they had to destroy the man who proposed it in order to prevent future generations of politicians from touching that rail. That no major proposal to reform Social Security has come since is evidence that the message was recieved. The Democrats, in fact, have not only done nothing to save it, they have cut the funding that supports it, and yet blame its fiscal condition upon conservatives.

Mr. Romney was no conservative, neo- or otherwise. He tried to present himself as such and, as a result, has done further damage to the conservative image in the eyes of those who understand it not. He did not sound convincing when propounding the principles of conservativism because he, himself, does not adhere to those principles.

Conservatives need to find their voice, and it needs be the voice of a real conservative, not merely someone taught to mouth the words. Conservatives aren't buying into the Etch-A-Sketch mentality that one can be erase their liberal past by holding it upside down and shaking it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 7, 2012, at 8:44 AM

"Conservatism is dead in the Republican Party."

Not true. It is dead among the leadership of the Republican Party, because the Party leadership has a vested interest in growing power, just as the Democratic Party leadership does. However, rank and file still have many among them that believe in conservative values. As I say, they need to find their voice, as they did briefly with the T.E.A. Party movement.

The key is to not become disheartened with setbacks. That is hard to do. It is the nature of government to try to grow itself in size and power. It is very difficult to elect people who believe in reducing the size and scope of government when you seek them among those who make their living in government. Reducing government reduces their livelihood. Reducing the number of governmental employees reduces their power base.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 7, 2012, at 9:59 AM

"It now is in a race alongside leftists to grow the power of the state.

It has always been so. However, conservatism will not win from without the party structure. Like it or not, the two-party mentality reigns supreme in our nation. If conservatives are to win, they must wrest the power reins of power from those who hold it within the party, rather than trying to form a third party.

The Democratic Party has long since become the party of liberalism and big government. The Republican Party is the likely place to look for those who still hold to conservative principles. But, again I say, there has to be a unifying voice and a principled ideology that unites them.

The Democrats are content to permit themselves to be a rag-tag coalition of varied special interests, united only by the the goal of growing government power in order to steal the finances of others to throw funding their way. The Conservatives within the Republican Party must do better. They must define themselves by basic principles of conservatism and hold true to them. They cannot be bogged down by side issues and an if-I-don't-get-my-way-I-won't-vote mentality that fuels many of their 'base' voters.

The conservative line is a tough row to hoe. It basically asks people to vote for it based on a premise that it will give them nothing in return. Most voters want something in return for their vote - tax cuts or funding for their project or laws that will favour their position on pet issues. The liberals pander thereunto, the conservatives cannot if they be true conservatives, since such things run counter to the very nature of conservative ideology. One cannot say, on the one hand, that they will use the power of government to legislate issues while claiming the government has no such power. The conservatives have to explain to the people why it is in their best interests to weaken, rather than strengthen, the power of government. That is a hard sell, but it can be sold.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 7, 2012, at 10:12 AM

It will not be sold, however, by those who don't really believe it. Mr. Romney did not really believe it. Thus, he spoke the words but did not live them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 7, 2012, at 10:13 AM


As long as common gets his FREE Obamacare he doesn't care what happens.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 7, 2012, at 7:32 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.