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.
AMEN
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3074711/posts?page=61#61
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...
Excellent point!
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...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.