"The Revelation May Have Come From A Republican Source At The White House"

[KittyWampus]

Good example of Mediawhores and Ratfuckers getting together to agitate and divide the Left


Title of the article was "White House Rules Out Constitutional Option On Debt Ceiling"

Read through the article and it ends with-

"It is worth noting, though, that the revelation may have come from a Republican source at the White House meeting, rather than from Geithner or the White House."

Hm, now why would a Republican want to make Obama look like he was ruling out an important option?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/white-house-rules-out-con_n_892940.html

[bemildred]

1. Right, and this is our "News Media". nt

[Poll_Blind]

2. And see, here I thought doing something like putting Social Security up for cuts was divisive.

Much more divisive than... Well, than what? The article you posted is about the President allegedly not choosing the 14th Amendment "out". That's good. In case you somehow missed it, it's really good. If the President were to choose the "Oh, to hell with it- it doesn't matter what kind of debt the government runs up, there's no limit because of the 14th Amendment" option, you can rest assured we will hold the coveted position of most insolvent country in the world forever.

As defined by our own CIA World Factbook, our account balance is $ -561,000,000,000.00.

http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

And of course, the moment the 14th Amendment switch is thrown that means that every successive president will use it.

So really, what is the big point of your OP? That a Republican alleges that the White House is not going to do something that they should not be doing at all, anyway?

PB

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

3. Launch the shiny objects! Chaff dispersed, Captain. Your next orders?

Interesting tidbit, however, is the mention of Geithner. Haven't there been rumors circulating that he's leaving? If so, why not just pin the crashed and burning trial balloon (leak) on him.

[sudopod]

4. What was clever is how they kept the President from saying what he really thinks for several days.

Anonymous sources say the Republicans employed a wizard to this end.

[leveymg]

5. Nobody ever pays attention to the President's weekly radio and carfax. It's all in there:

This is the part that really frightens me: "we agree on some of the big things": http://www.shallownation.com/2011/07/09/president-obama-weekly-address-video-transcript-july-9-2011-radio-youtube-video/

" We agree that that, both sides are going to have to step outside their comfort zones and make some political sacrifices . . . That means taking on spending in our domestic programs and our defense programs. It means addressing the challenges in programs like Medicare.

". . . And we agree that we simply cannot afford to default on our national obligations for the first time in our history"

That means that Obama has basically accepted the GOP framework for "bridging the gap": cuts in Medicare in exchange for a deal on raising the national debt.

He's basically agreed to the terms of the nation being taken hostage by the Right-wing. All that remains is working out the precise numbers for cuts.

[Poll_Blind]

7. I listened to it too. I thought it was a frightening example of "reframing the narrative" so....

...far away from reality that the picture isn't in it, anymore.

This whole "Oh, this gives us an excellent opportunity to strengthen Social Security" is...exceedingly disturbing. Ole Crazy Pat Buchanan said that everything Obama had done in the last few weeks was telegraphing (to him) that the GOP had him over a barrel. I think I agree. The important thing, though, is President Obama doesn't need to be over a barrel. He's acquiescing when he doesn't have to, and dragging us along for the ride.

PB

[leveymg]

9. President Obama in Weekly Remarks: "...addressing the challenges in programs like medicare"

". . . this gives us an excellent opportunity to strengthen Social Security"

I think its perfectly clear where he wants this to go. It's perfectly consistent with the message painted on the Lead Zeppelin that went down on Thursday, burning up lots of his political capital.

Geithner . . . yes, I'm sure he'd like a new private sector eight-figures-a-year job. Private Equity Banking or a Hedge Fund. G-d knows, he's earned it.

[chill_wind]

14. It's been out there in other outlets, too, reporting on the Biden Talks. (posted below)

[QC]

8. Is there any limit to their magickal powers? n/t

[WhiteTara]

6. a Murdock plant? Kock plant? DeVoss plant?

or just a run of the mill "republican"?

[frazzled]

10. You think the General Counsel to the Treasury Department is a "plant"?

FACT CHECK: Treasury General Counsel George Madison Responds to New York Times Op-Ed on 14th Amendment

By: Erika Gudmundson 7/8/2011
Treasury's General Counsel George Madison submitted to the New York Times today the following letter to the editor:

July 8, 2011

The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Contrary to Professor Laurence Tribe’s assertion (Op-Ed, July 8), Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit. As Professor Tribe notes, the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress, not the President.

The Secretary has cited the 14th Amendment’s command that “the validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned” in support of his strong conviction that Congress has an obligation to ensure we are able to honor the obligations of the United States. Like every previous Secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question, Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.



Sincerely,



George W. Madison
General Counsel

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/FACT-CHECK-Treasury-General-Counsel-George-Madison-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Op-Ed-on-14th-Amendment.aspx

This comports with Laurence Tribe's op-ed in Friday's New York Times, in which he makes a clear legal argument on why the "14th amendment" solution is a "false hope." The whole essay should be read, but let it just be said that: "The Constitution grants only Congress — not the president — the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Nothing in the 14th Amendment or in any other constitutional provision suggests that the president may usurp legislative power to prevent a violation of the Constitution."

What is a right-wing agitation (and I ascribe this to the Huffington Post, whose motives are becoming increasingly suspect by the day) is HuffPo's attempt to agitate the left and pretend as if the Executive Branch could legally use such a tactic. It can't, and it won't.

Game over. Let's not set up a red herring so that everyone can get their panties in a twist when it doesn't happen. It can't happen, and it won't happen.

[csziggy]

11. K&R

[chill_wind]

13. delete- wrong thread

[Warren DeMontague]

15. There goes the "no difference between Bush and Obama" argument.

Bush NEVER thought there was ANY authority the Executive branch couldn't claim or, failing that, just use anyway.