Posted by Tina
Thanks to the Daily Caller we have video that demonstrates the progressive view of the balance of power aspect of our constitution. The BIG SPENDERS of Washington want Obama to be given a big bland check:
Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis told The Daily Caller that President Obama should have the power to raise the nation’s debt ceiling without congressional approval, citing the example of President Abraham Lincoln issuing the Emancipation Proclamation as a good use of presidential authority. (video below)
This gentleman is backed up by Nancy Pelosi and others of the progressive syndicate who will continue to work in Congress on eliminating tax breaks as a means of gobbling up more money from the private sector.
The welfare state is the new America, people. Absolute power and control in DC is the goal for these power hungry progressives…and permanent progressive control is “not off the table”.
Boehner and the rest of republicans better remember they are in charge of congress not Pelosi, and say NO!
I agree Harriet but it won’t do much good as long as democrats are given a free pass on all of this. When most people say they blame both parties it’s a failure to see the purpose behind the leaders of the party.
Boehner is not great at negotiating and tactics they say…but what if he’s negotiating with people that are not negotiating?
In my estimation Boehner was sincerely attempting to address the problems. Boehner was prepared to work a deal on taxes and spending that would begin to address our economic ills and the debt; the other team came to the table saying they wanted a balanced deal but they would not negotiate such a deal.
Obama and his syndicate only want higher taxes and more revenue. They only want more power and control. They work outside the process with media assistance to totally defeat the opposing party in control of the House.
They won and gave up only a small concession. Instead of $200-250 K the upper income level begins at $400K and not a single spending cut.
What is the first thing from Pelosi’s mouth…we want more revenue! Why was it Pelosi? Because she provides the President cover since she’s not in charge in the House.
It’s time to hold these extremists accountable for the $16.4 trillion and counting debt, the unemployment…all of it!
Off teleprompter again Obama showed his hand on his unwillingness to work with the House when he said, “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they have already racked up through the laws that they passed,” the president said last week. “If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic.”
Who racked up all of these bills Mr. President? Note when he wants to take credit for work he didn’t do he uses the words “me and I” all the time. But, the finger pointing sure comes out and he uses “they” to deflect the work he and his minions ARE responsible for upon those who opposed it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gop-scoffs-at-obamas-pledge-not-to-negotiate-spending-cuts-for-a-national-debt-ceiling-hike/2013/01/07/4b78df0c-58f0-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html
Remember in 2011 Obama said he couldn’t guarantee SS checks and military pay check would go out if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised? Turns out Political Facts rated it as “Barely True.”
“Pelley: “Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default.”
Obama: “Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month.”
Pelley: “Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?”
Obama: “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
We heard from a lot of readers who wanted us to check whether that statement was factually accurate or if Obama was using scare tactics.
Back in February, we examined a similar statement by Obama — that if there’s a government shutdown, “people don’t get their Social Security checks.” We rated that Barely True.
Social Security is a mandatory program supported by a trust fund, so Social Security benefits don’t have to be formally approved by Congress every year. However, Social Security Administration employees are paid through appropriated funds. The real question about a government shutdown was whether those employees would be kept from going to work and if so, whether the checks would sit idle rather than arriving in mailboxes nationwide. The rules that cover government shutdowns provide some leeway for federal workers to carry out core Social Security functions. This flexibility allowed checks to go out during a 1995 shutdown, even as less-urgent agency functions lagged.
However, the two scenarios — a government shutdown caused by the absence of funding approved by Congress and a debt ceiling impasse that prevents new borrowing — are different. So the consequences of one do not necessarily match the consequences of the other.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gop-scoffs-at-obamas-pledge-not-to-negotiate-spending-cuts-for-a-national-debt-ceiling-hike/2013/01/07/4b78df0c-58f0-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html
What a leader! Scare and use the most vulnerable, the old, disabled and those who fought for our freedoms as a unjustifiable means to win at any cost. “The end justifies the mean.” Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals philosophy put to practice.
The Republicans have control of the House because our votes put them there to provide a check and balance to our system of governance per our Constitutional Republic. Their failure to do their job for those they represent will just put us further down the road transforming us into a democracy with the elites in control of their subjects.
Our founding fathers gave us a Republic not a Democracy. As Franklin said it’s up to us how long we keep it.
Republic vs. Democracy
Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html
After reading the above it looks like we’ve already lost it.
Used to refer to anyone belonging to the Democrat party as Dems in posting, but it’s time for a change.
In order to more accurately describe those elected to that political party, I have decided to rename it the “Taxocrats.”
Taxsocrats! lol I love it…better copyright that one before Obama steals it.