PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama's "no SS check" threat impeachable?


petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:22 PM
What I have been reading and hearing tonight is if he chooses, because it would be a choice, not to send out the SS checks he can be impeached. He is legally obligated to pay those among other debts. Also as the 14th amendment states, if the Fed Gov does not have the money to meet its debt obligations the Treasury CAN borrow WITHOUT the approval of congress to meet the obligations.

So what it comes down to is as stated in the other thread, this is a 100% political scare tactic. He HAS to pay. He has the ability to pay one way or the other. If the checks don't go out it's HIS choice so therefore it will be HIS ass.

Donger
07-12-2011, 08:24 PM
That's fucking idiotic.

durtyrute
07-12-2011, 08:26 PM
Obama can do anything he wants to do and you will love it

go bowe
07-12-2011, 08:33 PM
wtf are you talking to, little truther man?

go bowe
07-12-2011, 08:34 PM
donger?

i think he's not so much of an obama fan...

pete? ****a, please...

durtyrute
07-12-2011, 08:36 PM
Lol, EVERYONE HA .....HA .......HA .......HAHAHAHA

Donger
07-12-2011, 08:38 PM
Lol, EVERYONE HA .....HA .......HA .......HAHAHAHA

You are less than 30 years old, correct?

kstater
07-12-2011, 08:38 PM
So you're saying congress should not increase the debt limit, then turn around and impeach the president for not paying the debts.

durtyrute
07-12-2011, 08:42 PM
You are less than 30 years old, correct?

That's one whammy for you.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:43 PM
So you're saying congress should not increase the debt limit, then turn around and impeach the president for not paying the debts.

I am saying that congress passing the debt limit is irrelevant. He or the Treasury at least, has not only the Constitutional authority but obligation to borrow money to pay debts if that is required. He does not need congressional approval to borrow that money. So what it comes down too is if he chooses not to do that to try and prove some political point he can be impeached for not meeting his obligations.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:45 PM
That's ****ing idiotic.

Why is it idiotic? There is nothing preventing him from having the Treasury to borrow the money to meet the debt obligations. In fact I believe he HAS to do it. If he doesn't he is derelict in his duty and can be impeached. That is just how it comes down. Is it stupid? Maybe.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:47 PM
Seems to me whoever decided to put that clause in the 14th was pretty fucking smart. They eliminated any in-fighting going in in congress from preventing the country from meeting its debt obligations by giving the President\Treasury the authority to borrow the amount needed to meet said obligations without congressional approval.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:50 PM
Section 4 of the 14th


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 debts in question have been approved by law and cannot be questioned. Therefore the President has the ability via the Treasury to borrow the money without any say from Congress. When Congress aprroved the debt they essentially gave the President the right to borrow to meet the debt obligations.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 08:56 PM
I used to believe in the same thing, but the historians and the legal nerds have since weighed in, and the constitutional option doesn't look real. The president could make it real by just going off and doing it anyway, and say "I just borrowed $4 trillion, doesn't matter if it was legal, we cant un-borrow it and I have the army, so suck it." I'm assuming that wont happen.

Article 1 Section 8 vests the power to borrow money to congress, and only to congress. They started out doing it haphazardly through legislation until eventually they made their lives easier by letting the Treasury sell bonds, subject to a debt limit.

The US Treasury was not given the power to borrow money by the constitution, it had to be granted that power by congress, and I don't think amendment 14 overrides that. Also, an old supreme court decision ruled that money owed on entitlement programs, legally speaking, are not debts. We didn't sign a contract with granny.

So, perhaps the threat of a default is overblown since the only thing that the 14th arguably does is require that interest on the debt become priority #1. But, by placing interest at the front of the line, that makes Obama's warning even more credible. If the court was wrong and they are all debts, someone significant still has to not be paid.

go bowe
07-12-2011, 08:58 PM
Section 4 of the 14th





The debts in question have been approved by law and cannot be questioned. Therefore the President has the ability via the Treasury to borrow the money without any say from Congress. When Congress aprroved the debt they essentially gave the President the right to borrow to meet the debt obligations.

interesting theory...

only problem is that under the terms of the 14th, it's the debt itself that has to be authorized by law, i.e. congress...

a debt "ceiling" authorizes debt up to that ceiling, but not beyond...

further borrowing would increase the debt, which is not authorized by law...

does this make any sense to you pete?

petegz28
07-12-2011, 09:02 PM
interesting theory...

only problem is that under the terms of the 14th, it's the debt itself that has to be authorized by law, i.e. congress...

a debt "ceiling" authorizes debt up to that ceiling, but not beyond...

further borrowing would increase the debt, which is not authorized by law...

does this make any sense to you pete?

Yes and No. This debt in questions HAS been authorized by law. We are talking about money to meet already approved debt obligations, not taking on new debt obligations. I know, screwy because you take on new obligations to meet the current obligations but that's how it seems to be. Congress approved this debt. The President thus has the power to meet those debt obligations without congress getting involved since they already approved the debt.

I have heard a few people tonight already mention just that. I am trying to research it more but right now that seems to be how it stands.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 09:04 PM
interesting theory...

only problem is that under the terms of the 14th, it's the debt itself that has to be authorized by law, i.e. congress...

a debt "ceiling" authorizes debt up to that ceiling, but not beyond...

further borrowing would increase the debt, which is not authorized by law...

does this make any sense to you pete?

Its a good argument, but it fails because we (and I a couple weeks ago) forgot about Article 1.

The president didn't have the power to borrow money to begin with, and I don't think there's a mandate to borrow. (also, imagine if everyone in the world decided not to buy treasuries, what do we do then? Doesn't matter what the 14th says if the money isn't there) Regarding the 14th, the congress could tell Obama "sorry, we're broke, do the best you can"

petegz28
07-12-2011, 09:05 PM
I used to believe in the same thing, but the historians and the legal nerds have since weighed in, and the constitutional option doesn't look real. The president could make it real by just going off and doing it anyway, and say "I just borrowed $4 trillion, doesn't matter if it was legal, we cant un-borrow it and I have the army, so suck it." I'm assuming that wont happen.

Article 1 Section 8 vests the power to borrow money to congress, and only to congress. They started out doing it haphazardly through legislation until eventually they made their lives easier by letting the Treasury sell bonds, subject to a debt limit.

The US Treasury was not given the power to borrow money by the constitution, it had to be granted that power by congress, and I don't think amendment 14 overrides that. Also, an old supreme court decision ruled that money owed on entitlement programs, legally speaking, are not debts. We didn't sign a contract with granny.

So, perhaps the threat of a default is overblown since the only thing that the 14th arguably does is require that interest on the debt become priority #1. But, by placing interest at the front of the line, that makes Obama's warning even more credible. If the court was wrong and they are all debts, someone significant still has to not be paid.

I believe SS is a debt obligation just as someone who owns a treasury bond. Medicare? Not sure. I saw Petre Ferrara tonight (former Reagan advisor) talking specifically about SS and I didn't hear any disagreements from the reps on the Left side of the isle.

go bowe
07-12-2011, 09:06 PM
ok, i tried... :) :) :)

petegz28
07-12-2011, 09:10 PM
ok, i tried... :) :) :)

I could be wrong. I am just repeating what I have heard this evening.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 09:13 PM
I believe SS is a debt obligation just as someone who owns a treasury bond. Medicare? Not sure. I saw Petre Ferrara tonight (former Reagan advisor) talking specifically about SS and I didn't hear any disagreements from the reps on the Left side of the isle.

Someone who loans us money (to help pay for SS, food stamps, defense, whatever) has a debt on us. The money we promised to granny is not a debt. According to the SCOTUS anyway, doesn't make sense to me either and it was apparently a close 5-4 decision. Maybe the court would reverse today and call them all debts.

Found it, Fleming v. Nestor in 1960, which followed Helvering v. Davis in 1937.

http://www.frumforum.com/social-security-checks-are-not-guaranteed


“The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.

petegz28
07-12-2011, 09:31 PM
Someone who loans us money (to help pay for SS, food stamps, defense, whatever) has a debt on us. The money we promised to granny is not a debt. According to the SCOTUS anyway, doesn't make sense to me either and it was apparently a close 5-4 decision. Maybe the court would reverse today and call them all debts.

Found it, Fleming v. Nestor in 1960, which followed Helvering v. Davis in 1937.

http://www.frumforum.com/social-security-checks-are-not-guaranteed

Interesting...

healthpellets
07-12-2011, 09:37 PM
wait. so all of a sudden we're going to get the constitution get in the way of congress and the president doing whatever it is they want to do?

strange...

Mr. Kotter
07-12-2011, 09:40 PM
:spock:


LMAO

Mr. Kotter
07-12-2011, 09:43 PM
....

does this make any sense to you pete?

John, we are talking about fuggin' Pete, here. I'll asume that's a rhetorical question.

Of course, he doesn't understand Jack Shit. LMAO

go bowe
07-12-2011, 09:47 PM
John, we are talking about fuggin' Pete, here. I'll asume that's a rhetorical question.

Of course, he doesn't understand Jack Shit. LMAO

good to see ya around, rob...

we need you to help out on the 9/11 thread while you're here...

petegz28
07-12-2011, 09:50 PM
good to see ya around, rob...

we need you to help out on the 9/11 thread while you're here...

aww, aren't you 2 cute??? Like peas and carrots!

go bowe
07-12-2011, 09:58 PM
aww, aren't you 2 cute??? Like peas and carrots!

peas and carrots?

obviously you've never met kotter in real life...

petegz28
07-12-2011, 10:12 PM
peas and carrots?

obviously you've never met kotter in real life...

run, Forrest....RUN!!!! :D


sorry, I had too

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 10:42 PM
I believe SS is a debt obligation just as someone who owns a treasury bond. Medicare? Not sure. I saw Petre Ferrara tonight (former Reagan advisor) talking specifically about SS and I didn't hear any disagreements from the reps on the Left side of the isle.

Then you don't understand what the word DEBT means.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 10:44 PM
Someone who loans us money (to help pay for SS, food stamps, defense, whatever) has a debt on us. The money we promised to granny is not a debt. According to the SCOTUS anyway, doesn't make sense to me either and it was apparently a close 5-4 decision. Maybe the court would reverse today and call them all debts.

Found it, Fleming v. Nestor in 1960, which followed Helvering v. Davis in 1937.

http://www.frumforum.com/social-security-checks-are-not-guaranteed

Makes perfect sense actually. I won't bother to read the case, but the word "debt" wouldn't normally cover somethng that could be wiped out tomorrow -- as Social Security could be.

patteeu
07-13-2011, 07:06 AM
Anything the House says is impeachable is impeachable, but this won't be on that list.

I don't think SS recipients have anything to worry about.

Amnorix
07-13-2011, 07:20 AM
Anything the House says is impeachable is impeachable, but this won't be on that list.

I don't think SS recipients have anything to worry about.

There's a certain degree of truth to the first statement.

I think the second is right also, with the possible caveat that the checks could be a few days late.

petegz28
07-13-2011, 07:24 AM
Then you don't understand what the word DEBT means.

Go **** yourself.

Excuse me, I'm sorry for being rude. PLEASE go **** yourself.

Chief Roundup
07-13-2011, 11:09 PM
WOW upwards of 70 million people might not get thier checks. This could have disasterous affects if it happens. Disabled vets and a lot of our parents. Some of our children. We need to stop spending somewhere else and take care of our own.

patteeu
07-13-2011, 11:49 PM
WOW upwards of 70 million people might not get thier checks. This could have disasterous affects if it happens. Disabled vets and a lot of our parents. Some of our children. We need to stop spending somewhere else and take care of our own.

What makes you think people might not get their checks?

Chief Roundup
07-14-2011, 02:01 AM
What makes you think people might not get their checks?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-says-social-security-may-not-be-paid-without-deal/2011/07/13/gIQAkuBUCI_video.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rw-sanders/how-mean-can-people-be-or_b_896609.html?ref=fb&src=sp

I am one of those people whose Social Security check may not arrive in August, according to the president. President Obama said in a July 12 interview that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on Aug. 3 as usual. He also said that that could effect 70 million Americans who depend on these checks to live.

Not only would retirees not see their checks, but many others who depend even more on the government will also have no check. Among them are veterans who shed their blood, limbs and lives so that Republicans and Democrats could live in freedom. Many are already homeless and stay alive thanks to that check. But the heartless politicians on Capitol Hill apparently don't care about those soldiers. Perhaps they think that soldiers can take advantage of the many faith-based shelters, etc. Well, guess what? Those are already full. There is no room or money to take on more people, and their donations have suffered as well in this bad economy.

Then there are the disabled. Often when people think of the disabled, they visualize a person with birth defects. Many of those people live decent lives thanks to their checks. But the category also encompasses people like the soldier mentioned above, as well as me; I am physically disabled, and one of the luckiest among the disabled, because I did not become disabled until late into my 40s, due to an unfortunate result of surgery. I say that I am among the luckiest in this category because I had more than 40 good years of a very full and active life. However, the disabled all have one thing in common: it is not their fault that they are disabled. It just happened. Bad luck.

Guru
07-14-2011, 02:27 AM
You will get your check.

patteeu
07-14-2011, 06:55 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-says-social-security-may-not-be-paid-without-deal/2011/07/13/gIQAkuBUCI_video.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rw-sanders/how-mean-can-people-be-or_b_896609.html?ref=fb&src=sp

I am one of those people whose Social Security check may not arrive in August, according to the president. President Obama said in a July 12 interview that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on Aug. 3 as usual. He also said that that could effect 70 million Americans who depend on these checks to live.

Not only would retirees not see their checks, but many others who depend even more on the government will also have no check. Among them are veterans who shed their blood, limbs and lives so that Republicans and Democrats could live in freedom. Many are already homeless and stay alive thanks to that check. But the heartless politicians on Capitol Hill apparently don't care about those soldiers. Perhaps they think that soldiers can take advantage of the many faith-based shelters, etc. Well, guess what? Those are already full. There is no room or money to take on more people, and their donations have suffered as well in this bad economy.

Then there are the disabled. Often when people think of the disabled, they visualize a person with birth defects. Many of those people live decent lives thanks to their checks. But the category also encompasses people like the soldier mentioned above, as well as me; I am physically disabled, and one of the luckiest among the disabled, because I did not become disabled until late into my 40s, due to an unfortunate result of surgery. I say that I am among the luckiest in this category because I had more than 40 good years of a very full and active life. However, the disabled all have one thing in common: it is not their fault that they are disabled. It just happened. Bad luck.

The President said it and you automatically assume it's true? I don't think SS recipients have any reason to worry. If you're a tour guide at a national museum or a paper pusher at the EPA you might have to worry about a furlough though.

notorious
07-14-2011, 07:20 AM
This is just the beginning.


If we keep going the direction we are, it's going to get a LOT worse.


God forbid we might have to take care of our parents and loved ones ourselves.

Donger
07-14-2011, 07:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-says-social-security-may-not-be-paid-without-deal/2011/07/13/gIQAkuBUCI_video.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rw-sanders/how-mean-can-people-be-or_b_896609.html?ref=fb&src=sp

I am one of those people whose Social Security check may not arrive in August, according to the president. President Obama said in a July 12 interview that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on Aug. 3 as usual. He also said that that could effect 70 million Americans who depend on these checks to live.

Not only would retirees not see their checks, but many others who depend even more on the government will also have no check. Among them are veterans who shed their blood, limbs and lives so that Republicans and Democrats could live in freedom. Many are already homeless and stay alive thanks to that check. But the heartless politicians on Capitol Hill apparently don't care about those soldiers. Perhaps they think that soldiers can take advantage of the many faith-based shelters, etc. Well, guess what? Those are already full. There is no room or money to take on more people, and their donations have suffered as well in this bad economy.

Then there are the disabled. Often when people think of the disabled, they visualize a person with birth defects. Many of those people live decent lives thanks to their checks. But the category also encompasses people like the soldier mentioned above, as well as me; I am physically disabled, and one of the luckiest among the disabled, because I did not become disabled until late into my 40s, due to an unfortunate result of surgery. I say that I am among the luckiest in this category because I had more than 40 good years of a very full and active life. However, the disabled all have one thing in common: it is not their fault that they are disabled. It just happened. Bad luck.

It's a shame that you weren't allowed to keep your own money all these years, isn't it?

notorious
07-14-2011, 07:46 AM
SS recipients shouldn't get mad at the Pubs for refusing to raise the debt limit, they should get mad at all of the politicians that spent their money in the past that led to the need for borrowing money.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 09:21 AM
What I have been reading and hearing tonight is if he chooses, because it would be a choice, not to send out the SS checks he can be impeached. He is legally obligated to pay those among other debts. Also as the 14th amendment states, if the Fed Gov does not have the money to meet its debt obligations the Treasury CAN borrow WITHOUT the approval of congress to meet the obligations.

So what it comes down to is as stated in the other thread, this is a 100% political scare tactic. He HAS to pay. He has the ability to pay one way or the other. If the checks don't go out it's HIS choice so therefore it will be HIS ass.

That sounds like a twisted interpretation.... because of other parts of the Constitution. Doing that puts us on the road to dictatorship. I'd call for impeachment for that.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2011, 09:22 AM
SS recipients shouldn't get mad at the Pubs for refusing to raise the debt limit, they should get mad at all of the politicians that spent their money in the past that led to the need for borrowing money.

That'd be the logic of a rational person.

Chief Roundup
07-14-2011, 11:34 AM
The President said it and you automatically assume it's true? I don't think SS recipients have any reason to worry. If you're a tour guide at a national museum or a paper pusher at the EPA you might have to worry about a furlough though.

Yeah I would imagine he sees the financials that we do not. I full expect that if congress doesn't raise the debt limit there will be no checks. I do not draw SS but my father does. My stepson draws disability.

Quickie
07-14-2011, 11:36 AM
I full expect that if congress doesn't raise the debt limit there will be no checks.

:facepalm:

patteeu
07-14-2011, 12:36 PM
Yeah I would imagine he sees the financials that we do not. I full expect that if congress doesn't raise the debt limit there will be no checks. I do not draw SS but my father does. My stepson draws disability.

:facepalm:

notorious
07-14-2011, 12:40 PM
:facepalm:

:facepalm:

:facepalm:

KILLER_CLOWN
07-14-2011, 01:34 PM
Sounds like a terrorist threat, Americans don't adhere to terroristic threats.