# Boehner to step down in October!



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

WOW!  Not just "step down"..... but resign!?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-boehner-stepping-down-october


Speaker John Boehner plans to resign from Congress in late October, he told member of his conference Friday morning in a closed door meeting, according to multiple reports emerging from the meeting room.
Boehner is second in line to the presidency, after Vice President Joe Biden. He was first elected to Congress in 1990. He has served as speaker since Republicans took control of the House in 2011.
Boehner was meeting with his conference to discuss plans to avert a government shutdown, looming next week. The speaker was under enormous pressure to keep the government open and satisfy conservative members of the conference who were refusing to vote for any bill that would provide funds for Planned Parenthood.

In a statement circulated to reporters, one of Boehner's aides explained that the congressman would step down to avoid "prolonged leadership turmoil." Conservative members of the Republican caucus have been calling for Boehner to step down as speaker.
















​


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 25, 2015)

Well, if his replacement is one of the extreme crazies, I think your prediction of the demise of the Republican party is most likely, and we can look forward to another Republican shutdown of the government.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

Well... the election of a speaker requires ALL members of the House to vote... not just the crazies.. So if the "sane" Republicans.. if there are any, and the Democrats all vote in favor of a "Sane" speaker... maybe not..  I don't know who is going to be among the list of choices.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 25, 2015)

But Boner was fun to watch when he was tears.  I will miss him...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

BUT.. by doing this... he is free not to keep the government open for another year without consequence..




> The only surprise in this story is the when. It is shocking that Boehner would walk away now, but the decision frees him to keep the government open with no consequences. Boehner was going to be gone anyway. The advantage to his decision is that he gets to leave on his own terms.



He is no longer in fear of what the whackos will do to him... He will propose a budget the sane people can vote for with the help of the Dems.. and to hell with what the nutjobs think or do.   THEN the House will have to vote on a new speaker..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 25, 2015)

We need some real character as speaker to keep things interesting.  Maybe a guy that laughs at inappropriate times...&#55357;&#56860;


----------



## BobF (Sep 25, 2015)

Any rumor of a pending health problem for Boehner?   Just quitting does not seem like Boehner to me.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Well, if his replacement is one of the extreme crazies, I think your prediction of the demise of the Republican party is most likely, and we can look forward to another Republican shutdown of the government.



I would rather see a shut down than more unborn children (The true innoncent) be hacked up and have their body parts sold by by Planned Parenthood. In the grand scheme of things, somethings are more important than others. Anybody who dobuts the validity of that statement should do some reserch on Youtube. Videos too_ disgusting_ for me to add a link to, but they are there.
If that make me one of the "extreme crazies" so be it. It's a question of morality, Period.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

I would rather see the government kept open and the services and programs for Poor children and the elderly kept functioning.. so THEY don't suffer..  That IMO is what it REALLY means to be pro-life..


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

When was the last time you suffered because the government shut down?
Was it last weekend when the government was shut down for two days?
Did you go hungry when Congress was on Holiday for a month?
Are you are equating getting SS checks over a baby being butchered.
How about we use the tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood who gets 90+percent of all revenues from the unthinkable and use that for programs for Poor children and the elderly. It may even keep all of us from the gates of Hell.
Imagine that......Pro-life and compassionate.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> When was the last time you suffered because the government shut down?
> Was it last weekend when the government was shut down for two days?
> Did you go hungry when Congress was on Holiday for a month?
> Are you are equating getting SS checks over a baby being butchered.
> ...



Do you have ANY credible links to all this?  How about producing something about how Planned Parenthood is funded and how the funds are spent.  I will only look at CREDIBLE non-partisan data, not religious dogma and untruths.  PS Hell  is a unfounded rumor.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Do you have ANY credible links to all this?  How about producing something about how Planned Parenthood is funded and how the funds are spent.  I will only look at CREDIBLE non-partisan data, not religious dogma and untruths.  PS Hell  is a unfounded rumor.



Agreed.. He needs to check the facts and stop with the hysteria.  NOT ONE SINGLE PENNY of Federal funding goes to pay for abortions done by Planned Parenthood..   Not a penny... and that's because it is against Federal Law and mandated by the Hyde Amendment.  What a stupid move like this would do is stop funding for people that truly need Government assistance.  Food Stamps... Meals on Wheels.   BUT.. the uniformed will continue to believe that defunding a wonderful program like PP and shutting down the government to do so is the way to go..  Thankfully, people with some insight and well directed priorities will stop it.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Do you have ANY credible links to all this?  How about producing something about how Planned Parenthood is funded and how the funds are spent.  I will only look at CREDIBLE non-partisan data, not religious dogma and untruths.  PS Hell  is a unfounded rumor.



http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/pp_fact_sheet_2011_2012_annual_report.pdf

Hell=Untill you get their


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/pp_fact_sheet_2011_2012_annual_report.pdf
> 
> Hell=Untill you get their



http://www.sba-list.org/  A POLITICAL ACTION GROUP SEEKING DE-FUNDING PP.  

Nice try but not a impartial FACTUAL report.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

Black lives matter? Apparently not in New York City.

That is correct fokes...MORE BLACK BABIES ABORTED IN NYC THAN BORN.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-more-black-babies-aborted-than-born-in-new-york-city/



55,772,015 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973
Mostly True

http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...smith-says-more-54-million-abortions-have-be/


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 25, 2015)

Boehner Resigns

  do dah do dah


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

Mr. Jim as I stated in my previous post, Anyone who doubts the validity of that statement should do some research on Youtube. If you watch the videos and still feel nothing, than I understand where you are coming from.
We can quibble in numbers all night. Or argue this group said and that group did and your, his, mine and their religious views. 
But again. It's a question of *Morality*, Period.
Do we still know right from wrong?


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 25, 2015)

By the way Boehner need to go.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Black lives matter? Apparently not in New York City.
> 
> That is correct fokes...MORE BLACK BABIES ABORTED IN NYC THAN BORN.
> 
> ...


  Look!  Abortion is legal.  It will most likely always be legal.  I used to happen in private home, with coat hangers.  Would it be better that all those unwanted babies were brought into a world that has little to offer ultimately?  What of the rape babies, the incest babies?  The babies that would be carried by little girls who have been victimized?  You people are totally heartless and inhumane in your thinking.  When you want to present some credible facts about PP, post 'em but keep this other stuff in your closet.


----------



## Davey Jones (Sep 25, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Well... the election of a speaker requires ALL members of the House to vote... not just the crazies.. So if the "sane" Republicans.. if there are any, and the Democrats all vote in favor of a "Sane" speaker... maybe not..  I don't know who is going to be among the list of choices.



A female speaker would be nice for a  change,the males have screwed it up since they got elected.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 25, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> WOW!  Not just "step down"..... but resign!?



Good!  I hope this is the beginning of a Parade of these Career Politicians deciding to leave Washington.  This current "Club" is proving to be just about worthless, and the nation could use some serious housecleaning in Congress.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Mr. Jim as I stated in my previous post, Anyone who doubts the validity of that statement should do some research on Youtube. If you watch the videos and still feel nothing, than I understand where you are coming from.
> We can quibble in numbers all night. Or argue this group said and that group did and your, his, mine and their religious views.
> But again. It's a question of *Morality*, Period.
> Do we still know right from wrong?



Nothing is that easy.  Morality, right or wrong...all subjective in nature.  I am not religious, I do not believe what you have been taught to believe.  I believe it is immoral to not take care  of the living at the expense of the unborn in many cases.  You tube is NOT an authority and the video you speak of has been debunked as not PP.  Carry on and let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Ameriscot (Sep 25, 2015)

I just told my sister this bit of news and she is surprised.  She doesn't think he's bad and has good intentions.  I told her I thought it was him who agreed that Obama should be blocked in everything he wanted as he wanted to show the country he's a failure.  I can't find a reference to this on google except left wing sites.  Anyone know if this came from Boehner's mouth?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 25, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> NOT ONE SINGLE PENNY of Federal funding goes to pay for abortions done by Planned Parenthood..   Not a penny... and that's because it is against Federal Law and mandated by the Hyde Amendment.



True QS, you give factual information once again, this was from the site I previously linked to in the thread that was actually about Planned Parenthood.



> Let’s look at a few myths about Planned Parenthood:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

Why do some people continue to refute the facts? Being pro life is one thing, promoting lies is another. How much of the moral outrage is connected to a misogynistic fear of women having any control over their reproductive processes? Goodness, we can't have them engaging in unsanctified ****** practices, can we? Boys will be boys, but women must be.....Controlled!


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Why do some people continue to refute the facts? Being pro life is one thing, promoting lies is another. How much of the moral outrage is connected to a misogynistic fear of women having any control over their reproductive processes? Goodness, we can't have them engaging in unsanctified ****** practices, can we? Boys will be boys, but women must be.....Controlled!



This probably sounds like something Alan Alda would say but, I have never understood the idea of guys being "studs" and the girls being relegated to "sluts".  The easiest that the girl might get off in some circles would be she is described as "easy".  It has never been fair and it never will be fair.  Another absolutely insane comment is "bros before hoes"  how freaking one way can we be?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Mr. Jim as I stated in my previous post, Anyone who doubts the validity of that statement should do some research on Youtube. If you watch the videos and still feel nothing, than I understand where you are coming from.
> We can quibble in numbers all night. Or argue this group said and that group did and your, his, mine and their religious views.
> But again. It's a question of *Morality*, Period.
> Do we still know right from wrong?



By the way... the videos you speak of have been proven to have been edited.. and some didn't even take place at Planned Parenthood but were phony stock footage from some radical anti-abortion group.   Planned Parenthood has filed suit against the producers of the bogus videos and guess what... they have opted to take the fifth amendment.  SOOOO what does that tell you?   It tells you that they doctored and edited them and they are guilty of another smear campaign the radical Right loves so  much.   Nice try... but foiled again..   Hope those video makers spend a long long time in jail.  YOU have been had..


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

Fanaticism is a very scary thing.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Why do some people continue to refute the facts? Being pro life is one thing, promoting lies is another. How much of the moral outrage is connected to a misogynistic fear of women having any control over their reproductive processes? Goodness, we can't have them engaging in unsanctified ****** practices, can we? Boys will be boys, but women must be.....Controlled!



Agreed... and if the rabid anti-abortion group cared as much about the children already born... and their mothers who are struggling to care for them, instead of voting to cut federal assistance... food stamps... healthcare....education.. and against the minimum wage, then and only then can they pat themselves on the back and call themselves PRO-LIFE....  until that time they are only pro-fetus... caring very little about what happens to it when it's born.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

Hmmm. Perhaps pro birth might be accurate also. I do wonder what, if anything, will change when the majority of the older fanatics who espouse this tirade inevitably pass on to their Great Reward? In Canada, most of the extremist rightwingers are older, young people by and large hold much more liberal views. Is this generational divide prevalent in America as well? We go to the polls soon for a Federal election. Hopefully our Conservatives will be toast. Hallelujah to that! Our PM is extremely evangelistic right out of the book of Revelations. Eek!


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Sep 25, 2015)

I listened to Hannity for two hours driving in this afternoon.  (Yes, entertainment to keep one awake.)  Of course, he was gloating over Boehner's resignation.  Hannity had a number of guests from the far right caucus.  They are already plotting and planning as to ways of getting on of their own in the Speaker's position.  Seems like the names the right wingnuts were tossing out are Daniel Webster from Florida and Tim Huelskamp from Kansas.  Both are right wing, shut down the government, defund anything and everything, wackos.  Kevin McCarthy was a name they said would be floated by the GOP.  The hard right wants McCarthy defeated so they can get one of their own in as Speaker.  The preliminary "plot" is to have the conservative caucus act as if they are behind McCarthy so he is on the first ballot.  Then if they vote him down, he can't run for Speaker again.  At that time, they would put one of their own up for election.

Boehner is, I believe, staying until just after the government has to be funded.  He will move things through so nothing is shut down and PP is not defunded.  Then, he will turn things over to the House to fight it out.  

Who is elected as Speaker could well determine who will be our next President.  If it is a moderate and things stay as stagnant as they are today... or if it is a hard right wing wacko and we see shut downs and nothing but food fights... we could see that play right into the hands of the Democratic candidate.  OTOH, if the new Speaker is a moderate who can motivate the Republicans and the Dems to work together for the good of the Country, we will probably see a Republican POTUS in 2017.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 26, 2015)

Steve Scalise is another one that is very much in contention..

http://theadvocate.com/news/13540149-70/stunner-in-washington-house-speaker

He's the one who admittedly spoke to a white supremist group in 2002... and claimed to be "David Duke...without the baggage"....   Oh Joy..


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Sep 26, 2015)

If the right... WRONG nutcase gets in as Speaker, in the next year we could see....
1.)  The Iran Agreement nullified, making us look even worse in the eyes of our allies and our enemies.
2.)  The Affordable Care Act repealed leaving millions with no health insurance.
3.)  Legislation to deport all who cannot prove on the spot they are citizens.  Those who "look Mexican" would be jailed and loaded into busses/vans and dumped off at the Mexico/U.S. border.
4.)  Roe vs. Wade legislatively overturned.
5.)  The recent same-sex marriage decision legislatively overturned.
6.)  Impeachment proceedings initiated against the President of the United States.

Most all these would have to also move through the Senate and then override a veto by the POTUS.  Yet, if the far right feels empowered by the "rise" of their caucus, we might see significantly more political 'garbage' over the next year than just campaign coverage.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 26, 2015)

What we will see is a total waste of time and taxpayer money pursuing the issues you have outlined.   For one thing... all would need a super majority in the Senate to over come a fillibuster..  There are not 60 Republican senators.. If by chance some of this garbage ends up on the Presidents desk he will veto it..  Then there would have to be a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and the Senate to override it.  So it's all pointless.. BUT it's the stuff teaparty wet dreams are made of... and the euphoria of simply passing it in the House will be enough for these nut jobs.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 26, 2015)

Jeb Hensarling is another contender for the speaker's job, another Texas Tea Party Rep, need I say more?


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Good!  I hope this is the beginning of a Parade of these Career Politicians deciding to leave Washington.  This current "Club" is proving to be just about worthless, and the nation could use some serious housecleaning in Congress.



Bravo!!


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Look!  Abortion is legal.  It will most likely always be legal.  I used to happen in private home, with coat hangers.  Would it be better that all those unwanted babies were brought into a world that has little to offer ultimately?  What of the rape babies, the incest babies?  The babies that would be carried by little girls who have been victimized?  You people are totally heartless and inhumane in your thinking.  When you want to present some credible facts about PP, post 'em but keep this other stuff in your closet.



Legal-Yes
Moral- Let us have your answer.???


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

T do you think about them?Here





QuickSilver said:


> By the way... the videos you speak of have been proven to have been edited.. and some didn't even take place at Planned Parenthood but were phony stock footage from some radical anti-abortion group.   Planned Parenthood has filed suit against the producers of the bogus videos and guess what... they have opted to take the fifth amendment.  SOOOO what does that tell you?   It tells you that they doctored and edited them and they are guilty of another smear campaign the radical Right loves so  much.   Nice try... but foiled again..   Hope those video makers spend a long long time in jail.  YOU have been had..



Me, had? Don't think so? 55 million human being that are not here, I think they are the ones had. What do you think about them?


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 26, 2015)

Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 26, 2015)

With respect Dude,  I am not speaking of numbers but of people. You and I simply have a different perspective. I have witnessed the results of crimes against those already born, it is very personal, and exceedingly uncomfortable to see pregnant twelve year old girls bleeding on the floor. It hurts big time. You bet it is moral to afford that little girl an abortion, rather than force her to endure any further pain/risk. What if that was your granddaughter lying there?


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.



That's another argument, I know who will tell you what is right what is wrong morality. Do you?


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> With respect Dude,  I am not speaking of numbers but of people. You and I simply have a different perspective. I have witnessed the results of crimes against those already born, it is very personal, and exceedingly uncomfortable to see pregnant twelve year old girls bleeding on the floor. It hurts big time. You bet it is moral to afford that little girl an abortion, rather than force her to endure any further pain/risk. What if that was your granddaughter lying there?



Seems to me that scenario you're speaking of them exactly start in the timeframe that you're referring to. There may have been a breakdown and some guidance in the past 12 years is my thinking. I won't even start the boy in the 12-year-old girl for that.
To answer your question, I hope to God that my granddaughter will never be put into the scenario but if she were we will be talking about adoption. The misguided actions and suffering of a 12-year-old girl does not give anybody the reason to take a life. Hey very close personal friend of mine has been trying to adopt a girl for the past 10 years without luck because she's a single woman.Are we at the belief that the past 12 years have been tragic so let's kill the next one.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 26, 2015)

Yes I do. Like all sentient beings of free will, I answer to my conscience. Just as I am certain you answer to yours. We simply have differing views on what constitutes morality regarding  this highly charged issue. I am Canadian with a very different cultural background in some areas. I believe you are sincere in your views, as am I in mine. Such is democracy, pax.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> That's another argument, I know who will tell you what is right what is wrong morality. Do you?



Rape and incest-adoption.

Now a question for you.
Can your granddaughter use abortion for birth control?


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 26, 2015)

Are you seriously blaming a twelve year old child for being raped by a pedophile?  This therapist needs a drink. I am finished with this conversation. Good night.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What we will see is a total waste of time and taxpayer money pursuing the issues you have outlined.   For one thing... all would need a super majority in the Senate to over come a fillibuster..  There are not 60 Republican senators.. If by chance some of this garbage ends up on the Presidents desk he will veto it..  Then there would have to be a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and the Senate to override it.  So it's all pointless.. BUT it's the stuff teaparty wet dreams are made of... and the euphoria of simply passing it in the House will be enough for these nut jobs.



I like to see you quoting the Constitution with your 2/3 speak. It brings home as to just why the Speaker of the House had to go. I read here on this forum that John Boehner is believed to have fought President Obama at every turn when it comes to the Presidents agenda.  Laughable. The Republican held house has been a no show. If anything Boehner has been a will co-conspirator. 

You speak of a 2/3 vote need. Refresh my memory; Is that how the Affordable Care Act was passed? I seem to recall only a majority plus one being in effect. So if you are correct, and we both know you are, isn’t the ACA Un-Constitution? Or is something else in play here. How did ACA pass without 2/3 majority you ask? What changed? I was baffled too.

 Enter my pal Harry Reid. Good old Harry pulled a fast one on the American people. While no one was watching Re*id and at the time, House Speak*er Nancy Pelosi, de*vised a plan to fin*ish the job: The com*plic*ated pro*cess known as budget re*con*cili*ation, which re*quires only *50* votes to pass in the Sen*ate but lim*its how the le*gis*la*tion be amended. 

So you see the Democrats win, YEA. America’s loss. Not for the ACA per say but how the Constitution gets used as toilet paper. 
Now back to Boehner and let’s add in his buddy Mitch Mcconnell. Remember when Americans went nuts over ACA and threw out all those Democrats and replaced them with Republicans. A great day for the country, giving all that power and might to the Bobbsey Twins, John and Mitch, all the fire power to do what all those New Republicans swore they would do. Repeal the ACA. What did Boehner do? 

Well,  two before the new congress took office he did what every good Conservative would do. Wait for the new Congress. Hell NO! He pushedPresident Obama bloated spending bill in to law. That’s right, welcome newbees don’t be thinking you’ll be having a seat this table. You can have your say in two years from now. Yea, another win for the American people.  Also, that budget re*con*cili*ation, which re*quires only *50* votes, well Boehner announced that the Republicans won’t be needing that either that only for Dems to use. See Republicans need 2/3s vote. Democrats they get simple majorities. That way it’s fair. 

 Knowing the Constitution, I’m sure you would agree that the House of Representatives is known “Peoples House”. They *ARE* the nations check book. The closest branch to the people. They have the DUTY to say what does and doesn’t get paid. Shutting the government down when another branch of Government is stepping over the line is not only a tool but a Constitution Right they have.

 I like to call it checks and balances. Image my surprise hearing Mr. Boehner announced going into talks with Obama about Iran that the Peoples House won’t be using the “power of the purse” by announcing “We will not be shutting down the Government” before talks started. Talk about falling down with your legs in the air!  OK Obama, Let Us Have It!!

Now to Iran. Let’s talk about the 2/3 situation with that vote. It passed with a 2/3 vote. Yea!... Wait, I’m calling foul her also. See the vote wasn’t 2/3’s *FOR* the Iran deal; it was 2/3s *NOT AGAINST* the deal. Easier to get 2/3s vote that way. It saves face with the fokes. When your home you can tell the American people you didn’t vote to pass it and still not be lying to them but you really are because you voted not against the deal.

Just some thoughts from one of the nut jobs...

PS. Mcconnell is next.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 26, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.



Men can't bear children, they have no say. Hey let's just kill all the men in the womb so we don't have to hear from them.  
Another idea, Let’s toss aside morality; genic testing has come a long way. Why don’t we just state testing for defects in the womb? This way we can build the “perfect race” just like Hitler was going to have. We have a 55 million head start.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 27, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Legal-Yes
> Moral- Let us have your answer.???


Moral decisions are for each of us as individuals to decide.
Government has no business mandating morality in such a personal area.

Abortion must never be mandatory. 
No woman should be compelled to terminate a pregnancy
 because that would take away her right to exercise her own conscience.

Be the same token, we should not judge a woman who decides the best course of action is an abortion.
We cannot actually walk a mile in her moccasins to understand why she came to this decision.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 27, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> I like to see you quoting the Constitution with your 2/3 speak.



 Your hysterical ramblings have nothing to do with what I posted..   I was discussing the filibuster and the overriding of a presidential veto.. 

Your wish is my command.. 

The Filibuster:

The validity of the filibuster is said to rest on the authority of the Senate to make its own rules. (Article I Section 5)


> Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.


The Presidential Veto:




> "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."





> ---U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, clause 2


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 27, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Are you seriously blaming a twelve year old child for being raped by a pedophile?  This therapist needs a drink. I am finished with this conversation. Good night.




Where did that happen?


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Your hysterical ramblings have nothing to do with what I posted..   I was discussing the filibuster and the overriding of a presidential veto..
> 
> Your wish is my command..
> 
> ...



Just trying to get back on track with how this trend started.
Exactly the deck has been stacked against the Republicans because John Boehner would not fight as dirty as the Democrats. That is exactly why he's packing his bags next month.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 27, 2015)

Aren't you missing your Sunday morning dose of FOX???

You asked me where the Constitution demanded a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate... and I showed you..


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 27, 2015)

By the way...  Constitutionally, there is NO way any of the far Right whacko-doodle schemes can pass into law..  They may get out of the House with a simple majority... However once in the Senate.. they will be filibustered according to Senate rules.( see above for Constitutionality)..  and will require 60 votes...   If by chance they get through the Senate and on to the Presidents desk..  He will veto them..   That would require a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate to over-ride..  (again.. see above for constitutionality)..    SO..  I wouldn't be too quick to do the happy dance over Boehner leaving..  In other words... the 30-40 Teaparty Congressmen are boxed in.. and can do nothing but create drama and spend taxpayer money on useless crap.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 27, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> Moral decisions are for each of us as individuals to decide.
> Government has no business mandating morality in such a personal area.
> 
> Abortion must never be mandatory.
> ...



Well said Warrigal, I completely agree.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 27, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Where did that happen?



It happens all over all the time.  Don't you know about pedophiles preying on young girls?


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 27, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> Moral decisions are for each of us as individuals to decide.
> Government has no business mandating morality in such a personal area.
> 
> Abortion must never be mandatory.
> ...





Absolutely!!  Well said!


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 27, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Where did that happen?



Here is ONLY one such case, it happens all the time.  Learn the subject before attempting to teach it.

http://allday.com/post/4955-girl-wh...her-brother-looks-back-at-what-shes-overcome/


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 27, 2015)

Dude Who, You Tube is not the best place to do factual research.  In case you haven't noticed, there is a lot of crap on You Tube, those videos to which you refer being some of it.  They were doctored.  Whether or not one "feels something" watching those videos does not affect the question of whether or not they are authentic. They are bogus. 

What is the morality of trying to use doctored videos to attempt to close down facilities which do a whole lot of good?  Or does the end justify the means?  I think not.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 27, 2015)

Just a point of order -- Congress cannot legislatively overturn a Supreme Court decision:

"Congress can't eliminate court precedent. While Congress may pass a new  law that changes the impact of the court's decision, 
the precedent  remains in effect. For example, in 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that a  federal civil rights law that protected people 
with disabilities from  discrimination did not apply to the airline industry. However, Congress  meant for that law to apply to airlines. 
Congress responded to the  decision by passing a new law, the Air Carrier Access Act, that applied  specifically to air travel. While 
this had the effect of protecting the  rights of disabled people traveling by air, it didn't overturn the  court's decision. The earlier 
law still doesn't apply to the airline  industry."


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 27, 2015)

[h=1]Republican hard-liners are ‘false prophets,’ Boehner says[/h]Source: *Washington Post* 

*Republican hard-liners are ‘false prophets,’ Boehner says* 

By Mike DeBonis September 27 at 11:36 AM 

Outgoing House Speaker John A. Boehner, in his first one-on-one interview since announcing his resignation last week, compared conservative hard-liners in his party to biblical "false prophets" who promise more than they can deliver. 

Boehner announced Friday that he would step down Oct. 30 after nearly five years as speaker amid constant pressure from his party's right flank. Asked Sunday by host John Dickerson on a live broadcast of CBS's "Face the Nation" whether those hard-liners are "unrealistic about what can be done in government," Boehner exploded. 

"Absolutely, they're unrealistic!" he said. "But, you know, the Bible says beware of false prophets, and there are people out there spreading noise about how much can get done." 

Boehner referred, as he has in the past, to the ill-fated 2013 shutdown over funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare: "This plan never had a chance," he said, but he blamed outside forces for leading Republicans down an ill-advised path: "We got groups here in town, members of the House and Senate here in town, who whip people into a frenzy believing they can accomplish things that they know — they know! — are never going to happen." 

Dickerson followed up by asking whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the leading proponent of the 2013 shutdown, was a "false prophet." 

*-snip-*


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-hard-liners-are-false-prophets-boehner-says/


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 27, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Aren't you missing your Sunday morning dose of FOX???
> 
> You asked me where the Constitution demanded a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate... and I showed you..



Yes and I asked how did the ACA pass with a majority plus one vote.
my point being two-thirds majority is only if you're Republican Democrats need a majority + 1.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 27, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> It happens all over all the time.  Don't you know about pedophiles preying on young girls?



No, you accuse me of blaming a 12 year old girl for her right when did I do that.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 27, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Here is ONLY one such case, it happens all the time.  Learn the subject before attempting to teach i
> 
> http://allday.com/post/4955-girl-wh...her-brother-looks-back-at-what-shes-overcome/



Nice, can you show me where I said that didn't happen, love you guys question words if it your narrative. I was accused of blaming the 12 year old girl for what happened. I didn't blame her I didn't say it didn't happen I didn't refer to the case. I simply asked where did I state it was the 12 year olds problem. nice try though.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 27, 2015)

You have much to learn.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 27, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Yes and I asked how did the ACA pass with a majority plus one vote.
> my point being two-thirds majority is only if you're Republican Democrats need a majority + 1.



Because it didn't...   It passed 60 yea to 39 nay...  Please do your homework before making such statements.. It makes you look uninformed.

[h=1]H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[/h]This was a vote to pass H.R. 3590 (111th) in the Senate.

_Congress_
111th Congress

_Date_
Dec 24, 2009

_Chamber_
Senate

_Number_
#396


Question:On Passage of the Bill in the SenateResult:Bill Passed
TRACK VOTES



TOTALS    DEMOCRAT    REPUBLICAN    INDEPENDENT   YEA60 


60%
5802  NAY39 


39%
0390NOT VOTING1 


1%
010REQUIRED:Simple Majoritysource: senate.gov 


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 30, 2015)

.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act    	    		This was a vote to pass H.R. 3590 (111th) in the Senate.    	    	    

Congress
111[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress

Date
Dec 24, 2009

Chamber
Senate

Number
#396


Question:On Passage of the Bill in the SenateResult:Bill Passed
Track Votes





Totals 						                     	Democrat                     						                     	Republican                     						                     	Independent                                      	                	Yea                60 


                        60%                    
5802                 	                	Nay                39 


                        39%                    
0390                	                	Not Voting                1 


                        1%                    
010Required: Simple Majority                	                
I clearly see the words Simple Majority
Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act never passed a US Senate vote. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation out of the US Senate, and Obamacare only got 54 Yes votes. Senate President Harry Reid used an arcane loophole in the rules to “deem” Obamacare passed with a simple majority and moved the bill to President Obama for his signature. 
My homework is done, Let me know if they is anything else I can clear up for you.					source: senate.gov

 


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 30, 2015)

So....  In YOUR mind   60 votes out of 100 Senators is a SIMPLE MAJORITY???    What school did you go to???

There were 60  YES votes... 39 NO votes and 1 not voting....   That makes 100...... a simple majority is 50+1 vote..

60 VOTES  is a super majority... which is what is required to over ride a filibuster...

Maybe if words are too hard for you... a picture may help.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So....  In YOUR mind   60 votes out of 100 Senators is a SIMPLE MAJORITY???    What school did you go to???
> 
> There were 60  YES votes... 39 NO votes and 1 not voting....   That makes 100...... a simple majority is 50+1 vote..
> 
> ...



ok I'll try just one more time. If you been following this trend you would see that I posted before that the Constitution states you need to thirds vote to pass both the House and the Senate for a bill to become law. I think we agree on that don't we? Since you like pictures I'll see if I can help you with the little video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

Nowif you go ahead and count the red and blue dots and do a little simple math you'll see that two thirds threshold was not reached, or do you have another way of counting 2/3s that I don't know about? 
Now if you would like to go back and reread the bottom of my last post you will see that Harry Reid used a loophole to deem Obamacare passed with a simple majority.
Now here is the important part so I'll try to use small words for you. The definition of simple majority is 50% plus one vote. I think we can all agree that would be different than two thirds wouldn't it? If there's anything else I can help you out with let me know.


----------



## Dudewho (Sep 30, 2015)

You can twist and turn, attack, belittle but the one thing about history is you can't change it.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 30, 2015)

Dude....  Please study Senate rules.... 60 votes are required to beat a filibuster... When a bill is filibustered.. as the ACA was.. 60 votes are needed.  60 votes were gotten...   THE ACA had 60 votes... a super majority... NOT a simple majority... what.. Did you fail 6th grade math???  

You are so confused about what 2/3rds is... that''s 67 votes... or a 2/3 majority.  That is want  is needed to over ride a Presidential veto..   Ya know Dude...  It's really easy to figure out in the Senate.. with only 100 Senators...   I won't even begin to talk about the House... That would be far too difficult for you.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 30, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> You can twist and turn, attack, belittle but the one thing about history is you can't change it.




Not twisting and turning OR attacking Dude...  Just trying to educate you to the truth...  I'm showing you real numbers... The ACA passed with 60 votes...  a super majority..... You cannot dispute the facts... duddie..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Facts! You want facts!  You can't handle the facts!  (Sorry, that little corruption of a movie script couldn't be resisted.)


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 1, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Facts! You want facts!  You can't handle the facts!  (Sorry, that little corruption of a movie script couldn't be resisted.)




Facts...How about a play by play. 

[h=1]How Obamacare Became Law[/h]June 26, 2015  By Brian Sussman 3 Comments 

_I originally posted this piece on November 21, 2013.   
_
It was the trickiest legislative move ever accomplished in the Congress.  Here’s my best play-by-play:
Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010.  If you recall, Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives was unable to pass their version of a healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They essentially stripped the bill of its original language and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka Obamacare.
The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.  However after the bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died.  In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown.  That meant that if the House made any changes to the bill the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the amended bill (because they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare).  So Senate Leader Harry Reid cut a deal with Pelosi: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes if the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare.  This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. At this point PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.
Confused?
We all were.
And it got worse.
Remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy.  Therefore in order to pass the Act Senate Democrats decided to change the rules.  They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule (this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill).  _*This rule was only supposed to be used for budget item approvals so that such items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60*_.  Reconciliation was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. But that didn’t stop them.
So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation.  The American system of governance was shafted.  To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”

As I stated, the _*Bill NEVER PASS THE HOUSE WITH 60 VOTES*_.


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 1, 2015)

That article shows the history of how the Democrats twisted the Constitution to get the ACA signed into law. If you don't agree with it you can do your own due diligence and you will find that it is undisputed fact of what exactly what went on. The bill that was originally introduced to the House never would have passed a Constitutionally required 2/3's vote. So Nancy  and Harry Reid started their antics.
ACA was the first and only non-budgetary bill in the history of the United States to pass in to law without getting two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This all leads back to the McConnell and Boehner. The leaders of the Democratic wing of the Republican Party. They never showed the desire or ability to fight as hard as the Democrats unless they are fighting the the conservative base.


----------



## BobF (Oct 1, 2015)

I sure remember that mess as it unfolded for the public to see.   Good old Reid for pushing this twisted way and Pelosi for agreeing to use it.

Maybe once Obama is gone we will have efforts to correct this medical thing called Obama care.


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 1, 2015)

BobF said:


> I sure remember that mess as it unfolded for the public to see.   Good old Reid for pushing this twisted way and Pelosi for agreeing to use it.
> 
> Maybe once Obama is gone we will have efforts to correct this medical thing called Obama care.




From your lips to Gods ears. It will only happen if we get LEADERSHIP from the Republican Brass. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 1, 2015)

Get over it already....  The ACA is the LAW... and the ACA is hear to stay..  Not saying that it cannot be improved and expanded though...  however.. it is NOT going away.


----------



## Dudewho (Oct 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Get over it already....  The ACA is the LAW... and the ACA is hear to stay..  Not saying that it cannot be improved and expanded though...  however.. it is NOT going away.



Being faced with the fact of how it was really passed by sidestepping the house 2/3 vote  the argument you give me is for me to get over it. When the Constitution is used as a floor mat for the members of the House and the Senate to enter the chambers nobody in America wins.  Not a real good presidents to be setting.
But you're correct it could be improved, it could be expanded but hopefully it will get repealed.


----------



## BobF (Oct 1, 2015)

I was hoping that after Obama is gone and we get a less determined far far left bunch as Democrats that Obama care as it is today would be removed.   I don't think the US can maintain the program if it just continues to create large debts.

I would like to see it go back to a federal overview and then the states run it however they wish to as each state has different needs and requirements.   For example, Florida is heavy on senior and middle age folks and is mid size physically.   Other states are near empty of people but high in agriculture meaning more in the younger and family stages.   Some states are heavy in industry, big cities, universities, big hospitals and lots of technology and have a good mix of all ages.   Each should be able to address their needs independent of the one size fits all scheme we now have.  Some states are so small they aren't as big as some counties in our larger states.   One size does  not fix all.

Medical support will continue as it has for approx 50 years now.    Medicare does work for many but some, like me, I have bought other insurances to make it near painless to have to go to a hospital and seek out specialist to help care for the problems.

Right now I don't know what I have as my original insurer, ex employer, drop out saying Obama care was to be too high for him.   So each year I get a credit to use for replacing with Obama care and the supplemental insurances that I like to add.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 1, 2015)

Dudewho said:


> Being faced with the fact of how it was really passed by sidestepping the house 2/3 vote  the argument you give me is for me to get over it. When the Constitution is used as a floor mat for the members of the House and the Senate to enter the chambers nobody in America wins.  Not a real good presidents to be setting.
> But you're correct it could be improved, it could be expanded but hopefully it will get repealed.



Yes...  You  are just going to have to get over it...  THe ACA is here to stay..


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 8, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Kevin McCarthy was a name they said would be floated by the GOP.  The hard right wants McCarthy defeated so they can get one of their own in as Speaker.  The preliminary "plot" is to have the conservative caucus act as if they are behind McCarthy so he is on the first ballot.  Then if they vote him down, he can't run for Speaker again.  At that time, they would put one of their own up for election.



it seems that McCarthy knew he didn't have backup and withdrew his name.  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...eaker-if-that-occurs-heres-what-happens-next/ 


The House of Representatives is, quite simply, a mess. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) plans to get the heck out of Dodge by the end of the month. Speaker-in-Waiting Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) abruptly withdrew his name from consideration after he angered many fellow Republicans by suggesting that a committee ostensibly formed to investigate the Benghazi attack was actually formed to undermine Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. 

The House Freedom Caucus, a faction of hardline Republicans who are likely to push for aggressive tactics such as a government shutdown, endorsed an obscure lawmaker named Daniel Webster who has only served in the House since 2011, to be the next speaker.

It is possible that there is no one in America who can win an absolute majority of House members votes, the amount that is necessary to become the next speaker.
A prolonged period when the House is unable to agree on a new speaker is not unprecedented, although it has not happened for a very long time. Speaker Nathaniel Prentice Banks, who served from 1855-1857, was elected on the 133rd ballot, in part because disagreements over slavery prevented a majority of the House from coalescing around a single candidate. In 1859, similar disagreements eventually led the House to chose a freshman congressman, William Pennington, as House speaker.
Under ordinary circumstances, the House is highly constrained in its ability to act before a speaker is elected. The current uncertainty over who will be the next speaker, however, is unlike the impasses that eventually ended with Banks and Pennington’s elections because it comes midway through the current Congress’s two year term — and it also comes after the House already elected John Boehner as its speaker.

In an email, George Washington University political science Professor Sarah Binder explains that this enables Boehner himself to prevent chaos if his soon-to-be-former colleagues cannot agree on a replacement. Boehner, she notes, could “simply stay on as Speaker until the balloting is resolved.” At least one of Boehner’s allies in Congress says that the sitting speaker is likely to do this if necessary.

But what if Boehner refuses to serve through a drawn out process to choose his successor — of if he is overthrown in an intraparty coup? Binder points to a provision of the House rules that govern vacancies in the speakership after a speaker has already been elected as a likely solution. “As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members,” this provision provides. The rules add that “in the case of a vacancy in the Office of the Speaker,” the first name on this list becomes Speaker pro tempore and “may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end.”

A spokesperson for the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that Speaker Boehner has delivered such a list of names, and an entry in the Congressional Record also confirms that Boehner delivered the list on January 6. The Clerk’s office, however, would not reveal who is in line to become speaker pro tempore should the speakership become vacant. A request to the speaker’s office was not returned as of this writing.

Ironically, however, the most likely name to appear at the top of this list is the man who just withdrew his name from consideration for the speakership. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, after all, remains the House majority leader and Boehner’s top deputy.

The good news for the nation’s economy, however, is that there will at least be someone who will take on the speaker’s power to bring bills to the floor in the event that the House cannot select someone to fill a vacant speakership. The speaker pro tempore, should their services become necessary, is likely to have a very difficult first few weeks on the job.

 Legislation raising the debt ceiling is necessary by early November to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debts, and the government shuts down after December 11 unless Congress enacts new funding.


----------



## BobF (Oct 8, 2015)

*Legislation  raising the debt ceiling is necessary by early November to prevent the  United States from defaulting on its debts, and the government shuts  down after December 11 unless Congress enacts new funding.    
*
Why should the Congress have to keep raising the debt ceiling.    It seems that whomever is constantly spending more than what we have allowed should be shown the door.    Want money here, take it from there.   Get our budget back in balance or even reducing our debt.   Just like we have to do at home.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 8, 2015)

I never kept up with any of this, as I've never been very politically minded, but here's a review of the debt ceiling for anyone who wants to know more.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/11/the-partisan-history-of-the-debt-ceiling/


As we head toward what will likely be another rancorous debt ceiling debate, the writers at _The Guardian’_s Datablog have updated their great series of charts that tell the ceiling’s story.

Since 1944, America’s debt ceiling has been increased _94 times_. Up until the mid-90s, it was a pretty routine part of congressional business. But in the fall of 1995, Republican House leaders Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and John Boehner announced that within seven years they wanted $245 billion in tax cuts, entitlement reform and a balanced budget. President Clinton refused to give in and Americans dealt with the most serious government shutdown in U.S. history. In early 1996, when Moody’s announced they were considering downgrading America’s debt rating, the Republicans finally folded.

“The most crucial difference between Clinton’s debt limit battle and the current crisis is that, in 1996, the Republicans were bluffing. No Republican seriously considered defaulting on the debt to be a viable option,” Kara Brandeisky wrote in_The New Republic_.

A decade and a half later, in 2011, the debates created a stalemate that lead to an actual credit downgrade. (Clinton said that if he were still president, he would use the 14th Amendment — which many think makes the concept of debt ceilings unconstitutional — to bypass Congress. President Obama, a former professor of constitutional law, has so far resisted that option.)

Given the recent reluctance of the more conservative wing of the GOP to raise the ceiling, and the general GOP resistance to raising taxes, you may be surprised to learn that over the years Republican presidents have raised the debt ceiling _more times_ than Democratic presidents.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Legislation  raising the debt ceiling is necessary by early November to prevent the  United States from defaulting on its debts, and the government shuts  down after December 11 unless Congress enacts new *funding.
> *
> Why should the Congress have to keep raising the debt ceiling.*    It seems that whomever is constantly spending more than what we have allowed should be shown the door.*    Want money here, take it from their.   Get our budget back in balance or even reducing our debt.   Just like we have to do at home.



Well you might consider that spending money on guns and bombs for the military is still *spending*, every bit as much as helping citizens with medical coverage.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 9, 2015)

BobF said:


> *Legislation  raising the debt ceiling is necessary by early November to prevent the  United States from defaulting on its debts, and the government shuts  down after December 11 unless Congress enacts new funding.
> *
> Why should the Congress have to keep raising the debt ceiling.    It seems that whomever is constantly spending more than what we have allowed should be shown the door.    Want money here, take it from their.   Get our budget back in balance or even reducing our debt.   Just like we have to do at home.




Bob.. first... Apparently you have no clue what the debt ceiling is.   It does not allow for MORE spending... it allows us to pay the debt that is already there.  Do you understand how credit cards work?   If not.. I'll explain it to you..   You go out and purchase an item.. and then in a month or so a bill comes to your house and you have to pay it..   IS that simple enough for you?    It's the same with the debt ceiling..  We have already made the debt.. and now we need to pass legislation to allow us to borrow more to pay it..  It's NOT NEW SPENDING....  If we don't raise the debt ceiling we then default on our loans..  LIke how a credit card company turns someone over to a collection agency and your credit rating goes down the toilet.   If we default then our national credit rating goes down...  

You talk about getting the debt down.. Well... how can we do that if congress does not raise the debt ceiling in order to make the payments?  That's ok Bob...  Ben Carson doesn't understand what the debt ceiling is either..

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/08/stupid-gop-ben-carson-idea-debt-limit.html

The proof that ignorance has overtaken the Republican Party can be found in a recent interview where Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson appeared to have no clue about the debt limit.


Transcript of Carson struggling with trying to answer a debt limit question on American Public Radio’s “Marketplace:”


_Ryssdal: All right, so let’s talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, “We’re gonna run out of money, we’re gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November.” Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

_
_Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Ryssdal: To be clear, it’s increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You’d let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

​Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, “Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we’re not raising any spending limits, period.”

Ryssdal: I’m gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that’s already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I’m saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You’re always gonna ask the same question every year. And we’re just gonna keep going down that pathway. That’s one of the things I think that the people are tired of.


Ryssdal: I’m really trying not to be circular here, Dr. Carson, but if you’re not gonna raise the debt limit and you’re not gonna give specifics on what you’re gonna cut, then how are we going to know what you are going to do as president of the United States?


Carson: OK, let me try to explain it in a different way. If, in fact, we have a number of different areas that are contributing to the increasing expenditures and the continued expenditures that are putting us further and further into the hole. You’re familiar I’m sure with the concept of the fiscal gap.

A candidate who knew what they were talking about would have answered yes or no to this simple question. Since Ben Carson seemed to have no idea what the debt limit is, his answer turned into a stumbling expedition for an explanation.

Between Donald Trump’s lack of knowledge on everything and Carson’s lack of understanding of the issues, it is clear to see that stupid has risen to the top of the Republican Party.A person can make a lot of money in business or be a successful brain surgeon and not be prepared to be president. Ben Carson is Donald Trump without the offensiveness and bluster.Carson isn’t fit to be president, and to trust this man with the direction of the country would be a collective act of self-destructive irresponsibility.


​_


----------



## BobF (Oct 9, 2015)

Long lecture saying nothing.   With credit cards and we do not pay, the credit card gets cancelled and no more debts but likely a court whatever to force us to pay or do punishment time.   The point being that somehow, Congress must find a way to end this going over budget all the time.   Make the decisions to add costs show how that money could be made available before it gets passed.

That is what should be happening in our Congress.   They stop adding more debts and start paying down.   Solutions might need fixing our tax system so none of the rich can hide their wealth in other countries and no businesses can do similar and companies like GE would need to start paying taxes in the US.   Our tax rates then might be lowered to be likke other countries, after it is shown that taxpayers are now paying in the US.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> _Ryssdal: All right, so let’s talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, “We’re gonna run out of money, we’re gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November.” Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?
> 
> _
> _Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.
> ...


_
​Sounds like he'd make a fine president.     Scary really to think of him being in charge of our country.  I've said before that he may be a fine surgeon, but he should stick to doctoring or perhaps being a preacher, something he would do well.
__
​__
​_


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 9, 2015)

BobF said:


> Long lecture saying nothing.   With credit cards and we do not pay, the credit card gets cancelled and no more debts but likely a court whatever to force us to pay or do punishment time.   The point being that somehow, Congress must find a way to end this going over budget all the time.   Make the decisions to add costs show how that money could be made available before it gets passed.
> 
> That is what should be happening in our Congress.   They stop adding more debts and start paying down.   Solutions might need fixing our tax system so none of the rich can hide their wealth in other countries and no businesses can do similar and companies like GE would need to start paying taxes in the US.   Our tax rates then might be lowered to be likke other countries, after it is shown that taxpayers are now paying in the US.



What kind of magic credit card do YOU have Bob?   Run up the balance and you refuse to pay and your credit card company says.. "that's OK Bob.. You don't have to... we will cancel your obligation"?     lol!!  PLEASE tell me so I can sign up for one of those cards..  lol!!

Again... the debt ceiling simply authorizes payment of existing debt... Do you think the USA should default?   Do you think our credit rating should be lowered?  Again and again you prove your limited understanding of the issues.  What's sad is that there are about 40 congressmen in the House that also have a limited understanding.. and would rather destroy the country than actually find solutions...


----------



## BobF (Oct 9, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> What kind of magic credit card do YOU have Bob?   Run up the balance and you refuse to pay and your credit card company says.. "that's OK Bob.. You don't have to... we will cancel your obligation"?     lol!!  PLEASE tell me so I can sign up for one of those cards..  lol!!
> 
> Again... the debt ceiling simply authorizes payment of existing debt... Do you think the USA should default?   Do you think our credit rating should be lowered?  Again and again you prove your limited understanding of the issues.  What's sad is that there are about 40 congressmen in the House that also have a limited understanding.. and would rather destroy the country than actually find solutions...



Please re read my post as you are quoting it entirely wrong.

I used the credit card situation to show how the Congress is wrong.   They tell us the limits, debt ceiling, and we have to abide by it or be in real trouble.   Credit card cancelled or maybe even end up in court if we don't pay up the debt.   And yes that is a limit for debts and should be watched and honored.    Should we default, not at all.   And that puts the burden right into the hands of Congress to avoid going over that target any more.   As that 18.5 trillion debt does get paid down, I would hope they then lower the debt ceiling accordingly. 

Now we have a congress that has a debt ceiling already posted.   To avoid breaking that limit they need to pass balanced budget items that take from one place to another use, if needed to be done.    Our government is not to be just another crap shoot as it has done for far too many years.   No reason for continuing to just keep on raising the debt ceiling over and over.    

Time for an honest government and not the way it has been running.   We know how much our taxes bring in so expenditures should never be that high or higher.   If our Congress folks can not add or subtract then we need to hire some accountants to help them put together new budget items.

You notice that I am not blaming one side or the other, it is our Congress that has folks from all persuasions overseeing our budgets.


----------

