Skip to comments.Mark Levin Warns: Obama is Planning to Raise the Debt Limit Unilaterally
Posted on 10/04/2013 9:11:15 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
(I'm paraphrasing, so I highly recommend listening to the podcast, beginning about half-way through.)
In his 10/3/13 broadcast, Mark warns that, based upon Obama's inflammatory rhetoric regarding the debt ceiling, and the supposedly impending "default" on our debt, that Obama plans on acting unilaterally to over-spend the debt limit.
Mark correlates a couple of facts. The first is that Obama is harping on "default." Most pundits are reading this as a means of "talking down" the economy, in order to blame the "Republican shutdown" for a weakening economy.
But Mark believes that Obama is laying the groundwork for overspending the debt limit. Mark states that while Congress has the authority to authorize expenditures, the president can spend money regardless. (I'm paraphrasing to the best of my ability, but if someone could clarify the mechanisms involved, I'd appreciate it.)
Additionally, Obama's Treasury Secretary is harping on the fact that there is little left that he can do to pay our national debt, leaving no alternative to raising the debt ceiling.
Regardless, the point may be moot, because from what I've heard elsewhere, Boehner is already indicating that he will cave on the debt ceiling. He has stated that he is willing to violate the "Hastert rule," and bring a vote that the MAJORITY of Republicans reject.
Let him. We’ll let the demos run on that too.
“Obama’s Treasury Secretary is harping on the fact that there is little left that he can do to pay our national debt, leaving no alternative to raising the debt ceiling.”
I call BS on this. They still can cut spending. Cut out all anti-Constitutional activities: Dept of Ed, Energy, HHS, AG for starters. Then, dump the EPA completely. Dept of the Interior is a quaint notion, but the FedGov should NOT be the largest land owner in the country, no more than it should be largest employer.
Get back within the constraints of the Constitution and stop all the stupid, reckless spending.
The second hour of the Mark Levin show last night was really great on this subject. Mark is always a step ahead of what this Marxist has planned.
I don’t think most people even know what the debt limit is.
Obama is just a worm chewing up the constitution— he does not care for it to the point that he would prefer to see it destroyed, even if he gets his way on everything else.
i wonder what the mechanics of the override would be. what document would he need to sign that the federal reserve would take? he would need a number of collaborators in the federal reserve willing to overlook that he has no constitutional authority to increase the debt unilaterally, yes?
can boehner and the republicans pass a 3 month extension of the debt (3 months would get everyone past christmas) without capitulating on obamacare?
The mob will agree, “Just give us our free stuff!”
So what happens after default/collapse?
No responsible money manager or investor would ever ‘buy’ such unauthorized/illegal ‘securities’
so this is mostly more political propaganda BS
Of course, but what will they actually do? Cut spending for the cancer-stricken kids. Halt SS checks. Halt military checks, etc. And the sympathetic media will collaborate.
As I’ve said before, if the president borrows money on his own authority alone, that is, without the authority of the people through the Congress, then the people are under no obilgation to pay it back.
And the lender should be made aware of this.
He doesn’t have to do that; Boehner has already indicated that House republicans are going to do it.
the biggest expenditures are entitlements, so i would anticipate entitlements being affected.
What if he puts his picture on the bills? Seriously, we're already in uncharted, extra-constitutional waters. After republicanism comes authoritarianism.
Not again... Bohner already said he will do it with Dem house votes. Levin is still peddling that old line.
Obama has been ignoring the debt ceiling for the past four months. I really don’t think it matters whether it is raised or not.
My employer just issued "guidance" restricting all "indirect" employees to 24 hours of time charged next week. The "indirect" people e.g. lawyers, accountants, admins that don't do work directly for a customer contract are being hacked back. Direct employees who can't perform work because their government work sites are locked out are also into the forced use of earned time off. I've been in that mode since last May. The 509 hours of earned time off is now burned to 32 hours. There isn't much blood left in the turnip to carry me or my employer through.
As you know, he's covered that by having some cabinet bureau cook the books. So he can paper this over for a while. But this just proves how close we are to Obama trying this.
i agree....despite the fact he’s been a major disappointment, Boehner was right this morning when he said there have been record receipts in revenues from taxes flowing into the federal gov’t this past year- so why spend more??
This will have to happen sooner or later, may as well be sooner.
Thinking as a responsible adult with a generation behind us to be responsible for.
I have heard way over enough of people saying, Oh, this is the end of our country, bla bla
No. It is not. We have He kids right now do not deserve to have to pay for all of this crap plus the ridiculous college debt their uninformed, unthinking parents are allowing them to take on.
Say, you are paying for college to a kid and see how fast they turn into consumers. At age 15, too.
Same with BO. Tell him he has to pay for this extraconstitutional spending with his $450 K per year, including, ad especially his personal outings.
You are correct!
You'd be surprised how many notes the House of Saud holds on mineral rich areas in the West. It's only natural that the administrator of the borrowing culture (Obama) would be a Saudi sympathizer/employee.
I would go further than that.Most people don’t know what the Constitution is and they don’t exercise their rights. They won’t notice when those rights are gone.
“In Alluh We Trust?”
He can try but who will listen?
Per the 14th Amendment the debt, pensions and defense have to be paid. Whatever’s left can go to all the other govt. spending. The Treasury even maintains and makes debt payments on a separate computer system from the one which makes other Treasury payments.
And should the debt somehow not get paid, interest rates explode.
All these scenarios cost the Administration and Dems much more than Repubs.
Libs are in full bluff and bluster mode on this. Let’s hope conservatives and our Reps don’t fall for it.
Yeah. They can cut expenditures, but neither path (debt default or refusal to increase the debt limit) is responsible governance. Do you seriously want President Obama determining what gets cut in order to balance the budget overnight? Congress has an obligation to fix this by voting for a budget. That has to include raising the debt ceiling.
You might not care if government balances the budget overnight, but that will likely cause economic chaos on a grand scale. The deficit alone is something like 6% of GDP. We’re either in a recession or near recession right now (depending on who you talk to). Remove 6% from an economy that’s maybe growing 1%, especially without an ordered process to do so, and you could very well cause the economy to spiral down.
Government needs to be reduced of course, and I even bet most Americans will even support that. But it has to be done smartly. Simple refusal to increase the debt limit is not governance. That’s probably why Speaker Boehner will join with Democrats, if necessary, to prevent that, and please keep in mind that this is a separate issue from the CR to fund Obamacare.
Again, what we really need is a budget. The Democrats are holding the nation hostage. Stand firm on what gets funded, but don’t refuse to increase the debt limit.
The bottom line here is that the Fed continues to dump $85 billion per month into Treasury Dept. coffers. And Congress has shown zero willingness to do anything to stop it. The Fed action technically does not add to the debt since there is zero expectation that this money will be paid back.
But it does steal from American pockets by diminishing the value of the money already there. Each time you visit the grocery store and wonder why bananas have gone to 75¢/lb when that price had remained at 49¢/lb for two decades, you will then realize that your pocket has been picked, value from your wallet has been stolen, and that value has been handed over to the person standing in front of you in the check-out line with the EBT card in hand.
Wow! Did he really rake in that much money for the advance of his next book (written by someone else)? Impressive.
Why extend it? Let them run on receipts. Voila, a balanced budget!
If the governmetn wants more money it can improve the economy! Reopen the coal plants, roll back the EPA, cut taxes, reduce regulatory burdens, etc.
If the debt isn’t raised whose going to get hurt the most? The administration and the Dems. Their policies are parasitic. They’re broken. THEY DON’T WORK. So why are conservatives worried about helping Dems and their constituents?
Conservatives need to start asking the media “Is Obamacare really worth all this?”
Congress has given up so much of its power and duties, that this might as well go too, if they don’t fight for it
I wouldn’t buy any gov’t debt that was issued under those circumstances. Congress should make it clear that the US is under no obligation to honor such fraudulently issued paper.
Last night someone on the Fox News panel said that Obama plans to “re-order” the relationship between the Legislative and Executive branches.
It all fits.
Why does he need to? He apparently has an endless supply of cash to spread around just recently giving $445 million to Pubic Broadcasting.
Yet our national parks and monuments are off limits to Americans
U.S. Taxpayers to Pay for Spread of Turkish, Qatar Islamism
“re-order the relationship between the Ligislative and Executive branches”?
How will he do that? By EO? Will he dissolve the House like Czar Nicholas dissolved the Duma?
You cannot legally or Constitutionally do it. Try it f***bag. Create a 1776 moment.
Try it you kenyan bastard and you will go the way of dictators.
-— Last night someone on the Fox News panel said that Obama plans to re-order the relationship between the Legislative and Executive branches -—
Fundamental transformation. Who knew, except for all of us?
Who knows, civil war maybe? When the welfare pimps don't get their welfare checks, they will riot. Be ready for them.
Boehner will fold before the 17th. His last offer of obamacare fully funded with a year delay of the mandate and no Congressional exemption was a joke.
Boehner still refuses to use GOP party/donor machinery to directly engage obama regarding the false bill of goods obama sold to the American people. Where is the amnesty style carpet bomb TV ads? Where are the specific rebuttals of the debt threats by the kenyan?
The Cryer and Mumbles McConnell will cave. They want no part of a constitutional crisis with a black marxist prezzy in the WH.
Watching Special Report on Fox last night there was an interesting comment by AB Stoddard.
At the end of the program, Stoddard mentions Obama changing how the government works re-order the power between the branches.
Using a search, I could not find anything on the particular phrase that Stoddard said, but I did find a new executive order which at first glance appears to be amending several other executive orders.
For Immediate Release
September 30, 2013
Executive Order Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
That was AB Stoddard who said that there was a “report” out yesterday (10.3.13) about the “re-order”. See post 40 and post 61 on the other thread.
I've watched Special Report for years. Probably close to ten. And yet, until recently, I hadn't realized that I am unable to remember anything she's ever said. She is the single most forgettable commentator in human history.
But she must be serving some purpose...
Markets can function efficiently under good rules, and less efficiently under bad rules. They cease to behave as rational markets, however, when outcomes start being determined more by people's ability to shift the rules in their favor than by any other factor.
There is a Common Law principle that if someone in government performs some action claiming it to be legitimate, people who in good faith take action of their own based upon that should not suffer harm as a consequence of their good-faith belief. Unfortunately, courts are often willing to accept "good faith" as a given, rather than something which must be shown. Further, I'm unaware of any court acknowledging that there is a critical difference between a good-faith belief that an action is legitimate, and a belief that a court is likely to have found the action to have been done in good faith.
It's unclear what exactly would happen if Obama unilaterally issued unlawful debt and then ordered the government to pay it. What should happen would be that he would be immediately impeached and then prosecuted for embezzlement, but that seems rather unlikely.
Most of these bonds are purchased by very sophisticated investors.
No court in its right mind (admittedly quite a qualification these days)
could possibly find that Morgan Stanley or Blackstone did not know that the threatened unilataral-O=bozobonds were unauthorized.
It being, after all, in all the headlines of all the major papers.
just my thoughts. and we all know what a nice little wad of green fiat-money can do to almost any decision these days...