Here we go: Schumer says Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

posted at 6:17 pm on July 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

Last week it was a theory being kicked around on left-wing websites, today it’s evidently the nuclear option in the White House’s arsenal of debt-ceiling weapons. Go figure.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling no fewer than 74 times in the past 50 years, but now, conveniently, it turns out the president’s inherent power under the Fourteenth Amendment may mean it was up to him all along. Again, go figure.

On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt. But he noted, too, that the Constitutional debate on this question isn’t ripe enough yet for Obama to take an end run around Congress, even if Republicans refuse to increase the national borrowing limit.

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question’s been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn’t go there just yet.

“It’s certainly worth exploring,” Schumer said. “I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It’s probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn’t want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it.”

As I said last week when I wrote about this, I’m morbidly curious to see how the public would react if he pulled something radical in the name of staving off economic calamity. He’s already ringing the alarm bell by demanding a deal by July 22, ten days before we hit the ceiling on August 2, in order to avoid frightening international markets. Democratic messaging is ramping up too: Paul Krugman wrote a quintessentially Krugman-esque piece this morning about how those darned wingnuts want to wreck Obama’s presidency on the rocks of economic armageddon. Expect lots more of that after the holiday; given the public’s utter desperation to see the economy improve, the “sky is falling” approach to the debt ceiling is a way more effective line of argument for Democrats than mumbling about corporate jets. And in fact, the sky really might be falling. And yet, if he did pull something like declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, he’d be seizing control of the country’s apocalyptic debt problem for the purpose of running up more debt. I doubt it would even accomplish what he wanted it to accomplish: If the goal here is to reassure creditors that the U.S. will never default on its obligations in order to avert a market panic and skyrocketing interest rates, how exactly would a power grab involving an utterly novel constitutional theory achieve that? Does a bitter court battle, with the legality of payments issued on Obama’s unilateral order hanging in the balance, sound like a smart way to put investors at ease?

National Journal noted yesterday, seemingly without irony, that if the White House takes up this idea, it would fall to the Office of Legal Counsel to advise Obama on whether it’s constitutional or not. You may remember the OLC from the War Powers debate over Libya, where Obama broke with proper procedure and deliberately sidelined the Office because he knew that its director thought he was violating the WPA by not seeking congressional authorization. Gosh, I wonder what he’ll do this time if he gets the sense that they think the debt ceiling is a matter for the legislature, not the executive. Exit question: Spending cuts vs. tax hikes — what would Reagan do?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…it turns out the president’s inherent power under the Fourteenth Amendment may mean it was up to him all along.

Ahem, from a dictator’s point of view, *everything* IS up to him…

Midas on July 1, 2011 at 11:25 PM

I’m thinking that the perfect counter to this type of argument is to threaten impeachment if Obama circumvents Congress and increases our debt without their approval. Someone needs to say it!

ehvogel on July 1, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Eight pages of comments on a thread about Bachmann supposedly trying to mimic Palin…this thread will be lucky to break two…strange times.

equanimous on July 1, 2011 at 11:24 PM

eh…then again I guess there is really nothing to argue about how messed up President Obama is…everyone agrees.

equanimous on July 1, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Schumer says Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

We free men are discussing whether we can completely ignore Washington DC.

LegendHasIt on July 1, 2011 at 11:31 PM

As Obama views the law as just another obstacle on the road to utopia, you beat this will be seriously considered. If the Republicans fold then it worked and if the Republicans don’t fold, then it’s all their fault anyway.

Fred 2 on July 1, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Keep pushing us, Bro…

Fartnokker on July 1, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Obama is ignoring all kinds of other laws anyway, is anyone surprised?

1) illegally stole GM from its bond holders and preferred stock holders
2) ignored a stay on the obama care implementation from a court
3) implemented the dream act by refusing to enforce our immigration laws
4) using the EPA to regulate all kinds of industry that Congress did not intend for the EPA to control
5) ignored a judge’s ruling to issue drilling permits faster
6) using the NLRB to interfere with private business decisions of corporations (boeing)
7) trying to back door card check through executive order

What have I left out? I am sure I only have half of his abuses listed here.

karenhasfreedom on July 1, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Double Dog Dare you to do it!!!!! PLease oh PLease do it!!!!
If he does him and his cabal are toast for sure!!!!

Political Chef on July 2, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Obama is ignoring all kinds of other laws anyway, is anyone surprised?

karenhasfreedom on July 1, 2011 at 11:57 PM

I am surprised that the House and Senate does not seem to care at all…

equanimous on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Krugman-esque

Is that French for Bull$h!t!

jdkchem on July 2, 2011 at 12:10 AM

I asked Schumer, a lawyer………….

Well, there’s yer, problem, right there.

LegendHasIt on July 2, 2011 at 12:28 AM

What have I left out? I am sure I only have half of his abuses listed here.

karenhasfreedom on July 1, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Here’s a new one: Obama Continues to Shovel Our Money at ACORN

slickwillie2001 on July 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Interesting idea, and in keeping with Obama’s dictatorial preference to ignore the law and rule by fiat, decree, and regulation whenever it suits him. Probably harder to get away with politically than his stunts with EPA, DOJ, FCC, and NLRB, etc., though.

And if Obama loves being a dictator, he loves confronting his enemies even more. He wants to be in our faces and win. So I expect he will force us to either capitulate or walk away. Republicans will have to walk, because giving in after the 2010 mandate and Tea Party support would be equivalent to surrender for 2012 – why ever vote Republican again, right? But that’s what Obama is counting on.

Because if there’s no debt ceiling increase, the President gets to decide what doesn’t get paid. I don’t know if he will just directly retaliate against Republican districts and states, or try to turn public opinion against us by cutting off Grandma’s SS checks, but he will use that power like the Marxist totalitarian scum he is.

Adjoran on July 2, 2011 at 1:33 AM

I think we’re heading for another impeachment.

flataffect on July 2, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Chuck Schumer “a lawyer?”

I believe he never bothered taking a bar exam, going directly from law school to latch onto the government teat.

Jim - PRS on July 2, 2011 at 2:29 AM

For the record and those who don’t have it all memorized, this is the pertinent (4th) section of the 14th amendment.

Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The “authorized by law” bit is perhaps up for argument. Does passing the budget authorize the debt? Or is the debt limited by specific debt limitation statutes.

Do we have a government of law or do we have an Imperial Dictatorship style President in the White House? How quickly can we impeach him?

{^_^}

herself on July 2, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Begging for impeachment.

petefrt on July 2, 2011 at 3:42 AM

The “authorized by law” bit is perhaps up for argument. Does passing the budget authorize the debt? Or is the debt limited by specific debt limitation statutes.

herself on July 2, 2011 at 3:19 AM

The continuing resolution is pretty specific that the money is to come from available funds that noticably does not include new borrowing:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, hat the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational units of Government for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, namely:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Continuing_Appropriations_Act,_2011

pedestrian on July 2, 2011 at 3:57 AM

If interest rates go up over fears of a US default, it’s because the Democrats have been promoting that very idea.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Well, Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. I guess he knows what he’s doing . . . .

/

BigAlSouth on July 2, 2011 at 6:43 AM

Oh, go for broke and call his Marxist bluff -now – in time for 2012 retaliation one way or another. If he wins this, 2012 will be meaningless anyway -the die for presidental abuse will have been made (if it hasn’t been already)

Declare that if he does this then seeing no budget by the Dems, then there can be no money by congress. He is shutting us down. Force him to over-react to scare the moderates into choosing. They will in 2012 anyways. Don’t like that -then impeach old “stinky breath.”

Don L on July 2, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Good… the GOP should also leak that we will shut down the Govt. if they do so.

Never we -always they.

They have failed to bring a budget -we cannot in the name of fiscal sanity and the world’s precarious finacial instability undermine our nation’s fiscal position by one thin dime-no more money -YOU DEMS and the WHITEHOUSE have caused theis emergency and force us to shut preserve what is left of this crazed spending monster.

Don L on July 2, 2011 at 7:16 AM

If we continue to raise the debt limit, why do we have one at all? Firms have already said that our credit is at risk if we continue on the current path. The only choice in this is just like any other household budget. You cut EVERYTHING. How about a 20% cut across the board for starters? The sun will still rise and set on our great nation.

gatorfanatic on July 2, 2011 at 8:12 AM

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit.

Talking Points Liberals

This is what passes for intelligent discourse among the idiot liberals in Washington. Beutler asks scumbag partisan Schumer — “a lawyer” — “whether, in his view, the administration had the power to” ignore the debt ceiling.

Um…Schumer is a smart guy, and attended both Harvard and Harvard Law. He has a JD. But he has never practiced law for one hot minute, and there is nothing in his experience that would suggest that he is an expert in constitutional law. He is a two-bit partisan Democrat and something of a sleazy New York street fighter, but only in the whiny Jewish sense.

He doesn’t have a more intelligent opinion on this than the average bankruptcy lawyer from Kansas City.

Jaibones on July 2, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Well, Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. I guess he knows what he’s doing . . . .
/

BigAlSouth on July 2, 2011 at 6:43 AM

No, he said he was “taking off his constitutional law professor hat” the other day. And here we were thinking that beret was just an adjunct lecturer hat…

Jaibones on July 2, 2011 at 8:22 AM

lovingmyUSA on July 1, 2011 at 7:12 PM

That is very sad..I hope and pray that Txmomof3 and all the folks affected by this flood can come back quickly!.. I know they will..The USA needs them..:)

PS..Thanks for the info..:):)

Dire Straits on July 2, 2011 at 8:38 AM

This whole party completly ignres any rule of law…

jeffn21 on July 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM

dick

winston on July 2, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Does anyone think that the public at large, realizes that Congress is getting antsy about borrowing money to pay back borrowed money? Or that it isn’t sound fiscal policy.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2011 at 8:47 AM

On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt.

Hey, Schmucky! What’s that brown spot on your nose?

pilamaye on July 2, 2011 at 8:52 AM

In “Who Sent Obama“, Steve Diamond presciently warned us of the authoritarian instincts of Obama and his cadre of leftists in 2008. Nothing Obama has done has served to prove Diamond wrong. On the contrary…

Buy Danish on July 2, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Obama will do it in a heartbeat…

PatriotRider on July 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Why do I get the feeling this may be the last 4th of July we’ll be celebrating?

Knucklehead on July 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM

You and me both brother…

PatriotRider on July 2, 2011 at 9:26 AM

This makes my case: OBAMA is not a d–k, but AN APPENDIX! (a vestigial organ that serves no significant function, yet under certain circumstances can cause life-threatening health problems that need prompt treatment).

Mutnodjmet on July 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM

socialist monarchy.

how long until he bans yellow?

RealMc on July 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Debt limit not statutorily enforceable? Oh right, Eric Holder. Ah well, legislatures, I guess, just another one of those gossamer thin democratic principles that depend on good faith.

curved space on July 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

It would be one thing if Congress had never passed a debt ceiling extension before, but the last extension (and all those before it) codified by act of Congress that there is a debt ceiling.

J_Crater on July 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Obama acts with impunity because he knows the media (often times including FNC) will not challenge him.

bw222 on July 2, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Does a bitter court battle, with the legality of payments issued on Obama’s unilateral order hanging in the balance, sound like a smart way to put investors at ease?

I don’t think that’s a concern to this bunch, given the other steps they’ve taken to damage the economy: oil drilling moratoriums, EPA regulations, NLRB decisions, Obamacare, etc., not to mention that the Congressional branch of their party has avoided voting on a budget for nearly two years. No, I think that if they have any inkling that such a move would further their agenda, they’d go for it and damn the consequences.

n0doz on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Farmer on July 1, 2011 at 8:49 PM:

“No less than FIVE MILLION AMERICANS in front of the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court in September, 2012 for the reading of our grievances and our call for unmitigated redress.”

I was thinking Ten Million, but you and I are on the same wavelength here. We The People could literally descend upon DC and physically remove this illegal regime if we had the collective will and courage to do so.

IronDioPriest on July 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

“We’re spendaholics… we cant live without spendahol!”

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Note to Dems…I wouldn’t listen to any politician from New Yawk with regards to debt and debt limits….

Caper29 on July 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Obama really is a DICKtator.

TN Mom on July 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I think we’re heading for another impeachment Civil War.

FTFY.

SDN on July 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM

These leftist jackasses are going to destroy us if we don’t do something quickly.

rplat on July 2, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Somebody called Obama a maggot. I’m deeply offended. On behalf of all self-respecting maggots everywhere, I apologize for this slander.

+14 TRIILION!!!

While yall take a brief 2 minutes and enjoy (IMHO) the absolute BEST rendition of our national anthem in history Cactus Cuties – please PRAY for our Troops AND for the very future existence of our Nation

Katfish on July 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM

I guess they want a revolution…

rgranger on July 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Only congress has power to act through the 14th amendment. See section 5

Look at the perry case that liberals often cite in their argument. There is also a clear argument that congress can set limits on the debt.

Chubbs65 on July 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM

If the democrat party goes through with this, I think it will play well for the Republicans into the 2012 elections. They can use this abuse of power as an example of why we need to capture the three houses of government to change the ways in Washington. The public’s awareness of the debt/deficit issue is so high that this could be used effectively as a campaign issue.

JeffVader on July 2, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Why doesn’t the GOP take a 15 or whatever percentage cut across the board on their salary and staff budgets and say we are leading by example and will not run these budgets up until the economy is growing at x percent and job numbers are up and trending up in a sustained manner and then ask Obama and pals why they won’t do the same with the rest of the budget?

aikidoka on July 2, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Well, Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. I guess he knows what he’s doing . . . .

/

BigAlSouth on July 2, 2011 at 6:43 AM

I know that you put a sarc tag there, BigAlSouth, but ObaMao had made it clear way back in his Chicago days through a radio interview that he sees the Constitution as a document that limits the government, that says what it cannot do. ObaMao keeps “audaciously” pushing the limits by imposing fiats about what the government should do. He needs to go back to school and learn some English first. He furthermore needs to have his sails trimmed by Congress, the courts, and the people.

onlineanalyst on July 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

The seal knows.

AshleyTKing on July 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM

There is no goddam way the executive branch can just ignore the limits Congress puts on them through their exclusive control of the purse.

And no way the White House and Obama want anything to do with ignoring Congress AND the will of the public that is overwhelming against raising the debt ceiling, let alone ignoring it altogether.

deadrody on July 2, 2011 at 5:35 PM

onlineanalyst on July 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

He furthermore needs to have his sails trimmed by Congress, the courts, and the people.

That’d be US. WE, the people. Our critters in Congress will do what they’re told, once we get their attention.

Now … I’ve been around horses and mules pretty much most of my life, and I’ve had the misfortune to be around any number of union officials as well.

(Personally, my opinion of the mules is much higher than that of the union officials, and my opinion is infinitely higher of the Horse.)

The point is, with all four species, horses, mules, unionists, and Congress Critters, your results in attempting to influence their behavior is directly related to YOUR ABILITY TO SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE!

With a horse, initial communication is body language, which can translate to body position, eventually transiting to the spoken word to achieve a near-100% reliable communication.

Pretty much the same with a mule, except that a mule is a LOT smarter than a horse, and has a better grasp of his surroundings, and an innate capability of rendering judgement (almost) exclusively in his favor. To influence that mule, letting him have his way 25% of the time and having YOUR way 75% of the time mollifies him to the point of understanding and agreeing with your wishes. You use your 75% of your way to influence his choices of his 25%, thus making a nearly perfect capability of communication.

Now, the union man is another story. Once you get past his rhetoric about “the working man”, “oppression”, “slave labor” and his personally insulting and degrading remarks, you get down to the basis of 100% communication with him, ie., 25% power and 75% money. This ratio fluctuates, depending upon his level in his local and national, and his union’s standing among the other nationally-recognized unions; but, you get the idea.

Obviously, it can be done. The difficulty is in keeping him bought, once you’ve bought him. There are some quite effective remedies for that character flaw, but we’ll explore those another time.

The crux of the matter at hand rests with effective communication with The Congresscritter. There we seem to be up against power, money, and “influence”, which is a two-way combination of both.

This is NOT an easily-learned, and even less-easily applied lesson, for it can become quite dangerous, in numerous ways, to the person attempting effective communication with ANY elected representative, much less a Congresscritter.

I have found that one cannot effectively threaten a Congresscritter without following through. Therefore, don’t threaten a Congresscritter. With ANYthing. Nor any member of their staff.

Simply take the air out of their sails quickly, and effectively; but only with a very small, yet important, part of their PUBLIC LIFE. You get to choose the item.

Do not take public credit for it, but simply make certain parties very aware that you are a person of influence beyond their capability to affect.

You have just established your initial line of communication with your Critter and now have his attention.

As with horses, mules, and unionists, getting their attention is the first step, followed by a clear and concise explanation of what action you wish them to perform next.

This is ALWAYS a small, minor request, easily complied, and sets the stage for the next explanation, and the nest and the next, etc. etc., yadda yadda, yadda, until you have established a true communication, always being observant for any influences upon your critter which could change or modify the effects of your efforts.

We are NOT modifying behavior in any way. We are NOT asking for him to betray his ideals. We are NOT asking for ANYthing other than communication.

See … once you have the communication established, and reinforced, it is darn-near impossible for the Critter to NOT pay attention to you for his apprehension of what will be visited upon his countenance should communication be interrupted.

So … for those of you looking for the synopsis, here it is:

Who’s the boss?

WE’RE the boss!

Who’s THEIR boss?

WE’RE their boss.

Who do they listen to?

WE, The People.

And what happens if they don’t?

They can find a new boss, all by themselves.

See?

Nothin’ to it!

Farmer on July 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM

I am surprised that the House and Senate does not seem to care at all…

equanimous on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 AM

What I have heard is that to do anything against him would likely result in union protest, socialist and communist fueled riots and crys of racism that would disrupt our country.

I would say that might be a correct assumption. My opinion is to do it and confront the socialist and communist rot that is dragging our country down.

It is not like no one knew he was not quailified to be president. Every effort has been made since he became politically active to change the qualification to be president from “Natural born” to just being a citizen of 14 to 20 years. To be legal it has to be done by an admendment to the Consitution, but that does not work well for socialist causes. As we know, to socialist, laws are just meant for the common people to feel secure and to disrequard when they become inconvient.

There are people with real power that would have difficulties if their envolvment or even the perception that they helped with keeping him in office was exposed. The legal difficuties our nation would face is nothing compared to the difficulties they would be exposed to if Obama were to be removed from office.

I would guess they are at a difficult crossroad. Obama is toxic, especially after he releast a forged CLB. They could wait until near the election and insure that he does not win re-election or better, at the appropriate time have Obama decide that he needs to spend more time with family, or medical issues have come up, that cause him to decide not to run. That gives them a chance to save their gains towards changing the country to socialism with getting a socialist or communist into the presidency that does not have the illgeblity issues and lives in the real world or reality. Or they could see that now is not the time and wait another 40 years to try again, when America has regained enough wealth to make it possible to fund a socialist change.

Franklyn on July 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM

how long until he bans yellow?

Can he really ban the entire GOP?

Don L on July 2, 2011 at 6:53 PM

More food for thought…but nothing that we didn’t already know:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-tax-the-rich-again/?singlepage=true

onlineanalyst on July 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
- Thomas Jefferson

Speakup on July 2, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Obama and company have ignored the law at every turn including the Black Panther voting interference, EPA misrules, NLRB meddling, Obamacare unconstitutional, the war in Libya, etc.
.
Why should we assume that this would be any different?

FactsofLife on July 2, 2011 at 10:21 PM

I hope he tries it so we can impeach him.

Vegi on July 2, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Jefferson was the only really good U.S. president ideologically.

Spathi on July 2, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Ahh, we already are ignoring the debt ceiling for over a month now. The debt ceiling is $14.3 trillion and we are at $14.5 trillion.

dthorny on July 3, 2011 at 12:13 AM

I hope he tries it so we can impeach him.

Vegi on July 2, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Impeachment will be easy. Getting 66 senators to remove him from office will be impossible.

pedestrian on July 3, 2011 at 2:04 AM

If POTUS makes this move, it will be ruinous for the nation. Not because he will be doing it to follow stupid economic policy, but because of the larger precedent it will set, and will display to the world.

Presidents change. One of the reasons for the stability which this nation represents to the world is that regardless of the beliefs and ideologies of the current occupant of the White House, our three-branch system of checks and balances prevents despotic abuses of power.

The world may make many negative claims about us, but they all depend upon us. They rely on our overarching sense of reason and justice whether they like it or not. The moment that world sees that two branches of our government have allowed the Executive to assume despotic authority, the underpinnings of that trust and reliance are gone, and everything in the world becomes a Persian Bazaar.

Freelancer on July 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM

We are NOT modifying behavior in any way. We are NOT asking for him to betray his ideals. We are NOT asking for ANYthing other than communication.

See … once you have the communication established, and reinforced, it is darn-near impossible for the Critter to NOT pay attention to you for his apprehension of what will be visited upon his countenance should communication be interrupted.

Those two things contradict each other. You’re not changing their behavior, while you… …change their behavior. You’re delivering implied threats while saying you’re not threatening someone. You’re asking for only communication when you ask for more than communication.

Either you’re going to change someone, or you’re not going to change someone. Excusing the part where it’s OK to (re)purchase Congresspersons, treating those who choose to support unions as sub-human, and dressing it up in contradictory language doesn’t exactly say “freedom” in it.

sethstorm on July 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Why isn’t the fact that the debt ceiling was not raised 3 times in 1985, 1995 and 2002 as was supposedly needed being compared to the present situation and we did not default then prior to congress acting.

amr on July 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Why isn’t the fact that the debt ceiling was not raised 3 times in 1985, 1995 and 2002 as was supposedly needed being compared to the present situation and we did not default then prior to congress acting.

amr on July 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Excellent point! I’ll need to research these examples and see how long before Congress caved – if they did.

What may be different now is the absolute opposition to raising now or ever again. It is not a matter of timing – it is a matter of saying “never again” – and CUT SPENDING STARTING NOW. This is a watershed moment in our history. If Obama gets his way then there will never again be a practical limit on federal spending…and taxing.

This is set point and match point.

in_awe on July 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM

sethstorm on July 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Those two things contradict each other. You’re not changing their behavior, while you… …change their behavior. You’re delivering implied threats while saying you’re not threatening someone. You’re asking for only communication when you ask for more than communication.

Either you’re going to change someone, or you’re not going to change someone.

Noooo…..you’re going to COMMUNICATE with them. You and I are COMMUNICATING, but our behavior remains the same.

Excusing the part where it’s OK to (re)purchase Congresspersons,

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

treating those who choose to support unions as sub-human,

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

and dressing it up in contradictory language doesn’t exactly say “freedom” in it.

Please pardon me if I don’t rise to the bait. I’m old, experienced, and wily.

You, obviously, are not. No offense.

Farmer on July 3, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Noooo…..you’re going to COMMUNICATE with them. You and I are COMMUNICATING, but our behavior remains the same.

If you are communicating with them, what is the result that you seek through such action? Without a message or instruction, there is no communication. If there was another way to say it, you’re wishing to make the best persuasive argument.

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

What I am saying is that while the practice exists, it does not make the practice any more correct. If it is open to use by one bidder, it is open to any bidder – whether they do your favored bidding or someone else’s. It doesn’t stop devoted opportunists that say and do anything for a dollar, a vote, or a seat on a committee.

The better idea is to support, vote for, and elect someone that will represent your interests. Then repeat as necessary. No need to bring out the illusion of choice, when you know that someone is already in agreement.

Someone with enough character and personal strength will not need much persuasion. Find and promote those people instead. These people will be able to support and defend your interests better than someone who requires constant persuasion.

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

When you compare them as being amongst animals that have to be led/trained, you’re not leaving much room for anything else.

Left alone in presence of better alternatives(from the perspective of the one that makes the choice), unionization will perish. Make the better persuasive argument before thinking of a forceful/adversarial one.

sethstorm on July 4, 2011 at 4:56 AM

If you are communicating with them, what is the result that you seek through such action? Without a message or instruction, there is no communication. If there was another way to say it, you’re wishing to make the best persuasive argument.

The result is the purpose of the exercise, as described, ie., communication. As you may or may not realize at this time, there IS no communication from the People to the Congress, the Executive, nor the Supreme Court.

Why excuse anything? They are what they are, and if you believe they aren’t purchased, you must be new to this planet.

What I am saying is that while the practice exists, it does not make the practice any more correct.

There is no question proposed requiring a judgement upon behavior.

If it is open to use by one bidder, it is open to any bidder – whether they do your favored bidding or someone else’s. It doesn’t stop devoted opportunists that say and do anything for a dollar, a vote, or a seat on a committee.

The ESTABLISHMENT of Communication is the point. What is done to, for, or with the party with which communication is established is immaterial at this point.

Simply put: Ya cain’t be doin’ much if’n you ain’t talkin’ with ‘em, and neither side is listnin’.

The better idea is to support, vote for, and elect someone that will represent your interests. Then repeat as necessary. No need to bring out the illusion of choice, when you know that someone is already in agreement.

And just how would you suggest establishing and maintaining communication with THIS group? I am assuming you believe them to be “different” from any other group.

Realize this: What one would want to achieve, were one studied, and serious about their future, would be visceral communication. The ability for all involved to be aware of the others’ positions from a standpoint of USEFUL PRACTICALITY of function and ability, as regards the General Welfare, given their position within the “System”, and their ability to exert functional effect upon their area(s) of responsibility.

THIS is why we use “particular methods” to attract, gain, and hold their attention.

Someone with enough character and personal strength will not need much persuasion. Find and promote those people instead. These people will be able to support and defend your interests better than someone who requires constant persuasion.

None of your dream, immediately above, is even worth considering; especially without communication, as described. It is a pipe-dream, a wish, a hope, if you will, and, unfortunately reveals a glaring flaw in your logic, for, in this circumstance, there is no room for pipe-dreams. RESULTS are required; nothing else should be considered.

“Sub-human” is YOUR word, not mine. One must be as objective as the very word “objective” to be able to effectively communicate. Take a nice, long OBJECTIVE look at any union you would choose. Then, if you please, describe for me the ACTUAL functionality of the organization, EXTANT. You will then see my point.

When you compare them as being amongst animals that have to be led/trained, you’re not leaving much room for anything else.

I am decribing METHODS which have worked for me for many, many years. I have chosen to illustrate those methods using horses and mules, two difficult exercises in communication with which I am most intimately familiar, as well as quite successful, I might humbly add.

Rather than seeing the value, obviously you see what you must describe as disparagement. The entire exercise is lost to you.

Oh — did you finish that description of actual objective functionality of any union you might choose? What did you discover? Did you find the worth and value of visceral communication with emphasis upon practicality to be useful?

Didn’t think so.

Left alone in presence of better alternatives(from the perspective of the one that makes the choice), unionization will perish. Make the better persuasive argument before thinking of a forceful/adversarial one.

You have missed the entire objective of the exercise.

My sincere sympathy.

Farmer on July 4, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Go ahead punk make our day! Impeach!

MCGIRV on July 5, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2