Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:26:46 AM
The extremist record obstructionist GOP and many enablers easily fit to rebellion ..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebellion ..
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism by the Numbers
By Jon Perr - October 13, 2011 04:00 PM - 13 comments
Credit: Perrspectives
"Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner's move was unprecedented." A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill, that’s how the New York Times described Speaker John Boehner's refusal to grant the President's request for a September 7 address to joint session of Congress to present the American Jobs Act. As it turns out, "unprecedented" is apt description for almost every boulder in the stone wall of Republican obstructionism Barack Obama has faced from the moment he took the oath of office. From the GOP's record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling, the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president.
Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised:
"That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."
And so, as the chart above reveals, it came to pass. [ many links and much more ]
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
.. from your first - Debt Limit Options - Posted by Bruce Bartlett - 04 Jul 2011 .. one bit ..
A more radical solution would be to simply disregard the debt limit altogether on constitutional grounds, an idea I suggested [ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx ] in the Fiscal Times on April 29. University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps made a similar suggestion [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/ ] in The Atlantic on May 4.
The essence of the argument involves section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “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.”
In my view and that of Prof. Epps, this means that the president would have constitutional authority to take extraordinary measures to protect the public credit and prevent a debt default even if it means disregarding the debt limit, which is statutory law subordinate to the Constitution. .. your - http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2296/debt-limit-options [with comments]
.. from your second .. What our Declaration really said - By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 3[, 2011] .. one ..
Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression.
We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.
In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.
The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
.. your - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-our-declaration-really-said/2011/07/02/AGugyvwH_story.html [with comments]
yes, this time from this one today .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82178286
.. thanks heaps, F6, for bringing those back .. sure stretched in reply the first time .. :( .. lol
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebellion ..
The Republicans’ Unprecedented Obstructionism by the Numbers
By Jon Perr - October 13, 2011 04:00 PM - 13 comments
Credit: Perrspectives
"Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner's move was unprecedented." A month before Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s popular jobs bill, that’s how the New York Times described Speaker John Boehner's refusal to grant the President's request for a September 7 address to joint session of Congress to present the American Jobs Act. As it turns out, "unprecedented" is apt description for almost every boulder in the stone wall of Republican obstructionism Barack Obama has faced from the moment he took the oath of office. From the GOP's record-setting use of the filibuster and its united front against Obama's legislative agenda to blocking judicial nominees and its admitted hostage-taking of the U.S. debt ceiling, the Republican Party has broken new ground in its perpetual quest to ensure that Barack Obama will be a one-term president.
Even before Barack Obama took the oath office, Republicans leaders, conservative think-tanks and right-wing pundits were calling for total obstruction of the new president's agenda. Bill Kristol, who helped block Bill Clinton's health care reform attempt in 1993, called for history to repeat on the Obama stimulus - and everything else. Pointing with pride to the Clinton economic program which received exactly zero GOP votes in either House, Kristol in January 2009 advised:
"That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues."
And so, as the chart above reveals, it came to pass. [ many links and much more ]
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers
.. from your first - Debt Limit Options - Posted by Bruce Bartlett - 04 Jul 2011 .. one bit ..
A more radical solution would be to simply disregard the debt limit altogether on constitutional grounds, an idea I suggested [ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx ] in the Fiscal Times on April 29. University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps made a similar suggestion [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/ ] in The Atlantic on May 4.
The essence of the argument involves section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: “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.”
In my view and that of Prof. Epps, this means that the president would have constitutional authority to take extraordinary measures to protect the public credit and prevent a debt default even if it means disregarding the debt limit, which is statutory law subordinate to the Constitution. .. your - http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2296/debt-limit-options [with comments]
.. from your second .. What our Declaration really said - By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 3[, 2011] .. one ..
Whether they intend it or not, their name suggests they believe that the current elected government in Washington is as illegitimate as was a distant, unelected monarchy. It implies something fundamentally wrong with taxes themselves or, at the least, that current levels of taxation (the lowest in decades) are dangerously oppressive. And it hints that methods outside the normal political channels are justified in confronting such oppression.
We need to recognize the deep flaws in this vision of our present and our past. A reading of the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our forebears were not revolting against taxes as such — and most certainly not against government as such.
In the long list of “abuses and usurpations” the Declaration documents, taxes don’t come up until the 17th item, and that item is neither a complaint about tax rates nor an objection to the idea of taxation. Our Founders remonstrated against the British crown “for imposing taxes on us without our consent.” They were concerned about “consent,” i.e. popular rule, not taxes.
The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
.. your - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-our-declaration-really-said/2011/07/02/AGugyvwH_story.html [with comments]
yes, this time from this one today .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82178286
.. thanks heaps, F6, for bringing those back .. sure stretched in reply the first time .. :( .. lol
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
