CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 07, 2011 11:33 PM UTC
37 Comments
“We still want to make his presidency illegitimate so let’s impeach Obama because of X”.
Just like the Birther controversy, Obama is going to parry this latest attack on his character and leadership.
Clinton years ago as one of their finest hours. I trust you all remember the fat, ugly old men and their procession through (what used to be) the hallowed halls of Congress. Still turns my stomach — but those guys loved it then, and want it again.
If a Republican had said what Geithner said, the peanut gallery here would be on him faster than you can say “John Yoo.” How many laws does President Obama intend to unilaterally declare invalid?
As with Libya, Democrats prove their utter hypocrisy when they are in power.
that clause has been in the 14th Amendment since 1868. The GOP just never read it before. It does open the discussion but doesn’t end it. A court, or the Senate as the impeachment court, would almost have to decide the meaning of “debt”. I thik it would clearly cover SS payments and military pensions as well as contracts already signed. But, it would not, probably, cover Medicaid or payments to military members beyond their enlistment. It would cover EPA work in current Superfund locations and might even cover them going forwad unless clean air and water acts werre repealed.
If you find some more amendments and can appropriately twist them I bet you could put our nation on autopilot Socialismville with unlimited deb capacity … It’s kind of like those ‘No Doc’ loans you let Fannie Mae repackage as debt instruments. You know the ones Maxine Waters fought so hard for….
You can have any wacky opinion you want, but your facts and history are just wrong.
Let’s set aside your ignorance about the meaning of socialism, that’s just stupid.
You are re-writing the history of the mortgage crisis. Poor loans from Fannie & Freddie were minimal and late to the party. Hyper-speculation, financial insurance fraud and de-regulation of private loan financing caused the crisis.
Spouting factless ignorance doesn’t persuade anybody.
It’s Libertad.
http://www.slate.com/id/2298444/
would come back to bite. I’ve always put down at least 20%, often more and always advised those close to me to do the same. Save until you can. If you can’t save the 20% then you aren’t ready.
Save 20% and put 20% down — then you likely have no emergency savings, and if the market drops you are losing value on 20% equity. Save 10% and put 5% down and put 5% in a mutual fund or diversified stock portfolio — then you’re diversifying, you have emergency savings, AND you have a house.
If you’re older, certain about staying in the house long enough the market will go up, or you have substantial additional savings and investments, putting as much down as possible makes sense. Hell, for most people that makes sense. But for others it doesn’t make sense to spend any money on rent that does not lead to the acquisition of any real property when that money could be spent on a mortgage that after 30 years will mean ownership of a home.
I am currently getting more than double the square footage of my last rental for just over $200 more per month in mortgage (including all fees and insurance and taxes and interest). Buying makes sense in this market if you can get a loan with any down payment amount and you can afford the monthly payments. What does not make sense is putting all your savings into buying and then thinking the equity will be there in an emergency–home equity lines of credit are no good in a market where your equity just lost 30% of the value you paid for it.
get an education. The “debt instruments” you refer to were many but, the securitazation of loans by Fannie and Freddie should never have made it into the open markets. They would not if the bond rating agencies had been doing their job instead of giving all of those financial institutions the bond rating they could afford instead of the ones their bonds actually deserved.
As far as socialims is concerned, that word has many meanings. Define it finely enough and you can call the military a socialistic organization. If you choose to use such term, entirely your choice, please tell us what you mean by it, even if you have your own, what some of us call a “designer definition”.
The 2nd and the 10th. In fact, many teabaggers have called for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. They would probably argue this Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional!
Besides getting rid of untold numbers of people of color from the U.S. by repealing the 14th Amendment and making them non-citizens, it gets rid of onerous things like the debt statement.
If you think Obama is going to be impeached you’re dreaming. Are you dreaming of President Biden?
That’s rich.
The Republicans would have hung him from the nearest tree.
K…
I don’t think you know R36.
There are two scenarios where the 14th Amendment might come in to play here:
1) The debt ceiling law is written in a way that limits the validity of issued debt. (My best guess is that it prohibits Treasury from issuing new debt, which would be legally binding IMHO.)
2) Regardless of (1), if the Treasury had to issue new debt in order to pay off current due debts and interest, the Executive would be obligated to follow the 14th Amendment and ignore the debt ceiling law for that purpose – and that purpose only. (I don’t see this happening – we have incoming revenue on an ongoing basis that should be sufficient to cover this – I think.)
Regardless, no – I wouldn’t just jump all over Bush for this. We are the only country in the world that has a debt ceiling law. Everyone else presumes that if their legislature authorizes a budget, then they authorize the country’s debt to increase to cover that budget if necessary.
I’d call that substantial agreement. The fact that we do have a debt ceiling law, and it’s entirely within the constitutional power of Congress to enact one, is simply another check and balance on executive power.
Obama needs to back away from Geithner’s overstep.
and then that amendment trumps any statute passed by Congress.
If the executive passed the spending bills you might have a point. Seeing as all spending originates in congress, you don’t.
1) I don’t agree that we’d all be jumping over a Republican if they did this.
2) I do think that the debt ceiling law is of limited Constitutional validity.
That sounds like substantial disagreement to me.
As to the statement you made in your reply, I entirely disagree that the debt ceiling is a check on Executive power. All it does it counteract the previously expressed will of the Legislative branch that the Executive spend money per a budget. In other words, it’s Congress arguing with itself – which sounds about right considering the current Congress.
You’re confused. If this is hypocrisy, then please name the Dem platform (or even the liberal ideal) being violated by this stance.
The constitution very very clearly gives Congress the purse strings. That was clear in the discussions around it, the federalist papers, everywhere. They saw this as the key limitation on a president.
I do think that amendment has bearing on what is to be paid first. But just as many funding bills include constraints on how the approved funds are spent, it is well within Congress’ rights to also put a limit on borrowing.
So, if Congress passes a budget that requires the Executive branch to borrow, then says the Exec can’t borrow, is there a budget? Or can the Exec borrow to meet the budget mandated by Congress?
Constitutional issues aside, if Republicans in Congress didn’t want to allow borrowing beyond a certain limit (either the current debt ceiling or some other number), then they should have passed a budget that met that requirement. They didn’t. Why? Because they’re a bunch of chickenshits who know they would get thrown out on their keisters if they passed a budget that cuts granny’s Medicare and Social Security.
I am the peanut gallery here- and I’ve said for years that the idea of a “debt ceiling” is bullshit.
Congress makes the budget. Or not.
If they want the debt to go down- they need to passa a budget with more revenue than spending. If they want it to be flat – they need to balance the two. But they keep voting for deficit budgets. They’ve done their job.
Line item veto: unconstitutional.
Term limits: unconstitutional.
“debt ceiling”: unconstitutional.
There are some days I think Republicans would impeach a Democratic President for helping an old lady across the street.
Now, having said that, I think Geithner is just looking to do his job as best he can. I don’t see them using this argument come August 2. If the Treasury were forced into a position where it had to pay debt obligations, I could see the President ordering this kind of arrangement. But on August 2, the government will still have enough tax receipts coming in to pay interest and repayment on all of its due obligations. And unless someone’s been playing fast and loose with the Social Security Trust Fund, there’s also an ongoing ability to pay SSI benefits.
The people left out in the cold come August 2 will be the states, Federal workers (including probably some of the military), and any ongoing contracts – most of which hopefully can be put on delayed payment.
Shouldn’t old ladies be arranging for their own care and going out with a personal attendant if they need to cross any streets? I mean, come on, PR, why should the government use MY tax dollars to help some old lady who is too lazy to take personal responsibility for her own inability to navigate across motorways? If she planned to live long enough to be unable to cross streets alone she should have saved for that expense.
trying to bypass congress on this are slim to none. But since Obama refuses get caught with any interns and lying about it, GOPTers can dream sweet impeachment dreams, can’t they? They’ve pretty much had to give up on the whole birth certificate thing and getting Bin Laden put a damper on how Obama’s so weak and terrorist friendly we’re all going to die. ArapG, ‘Tad…meet straw…grasp.
Is that what this is about. Is the GOP now looking for a way they can get out of this game of chicken while saving face with then Tea Party wing? Hey guys, we fought the good fight but turns out Obama does have the constitutional power to stop us?Sorry about that?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
The whole impeach versus ignore crazies in Congress is pure political posturing. They are testing the waters and throwing red herrings and trying to intimidate or insinuate to get the upper hand.
The righties who regularly post at Pols are too stupid to see that is is simply political shadow boxing. They always assume that impeachment is a “real” possibility and cream their pants just thinking about lynching the black man. They’re pretty icky fantasies but nobody has ever called these creeps classy and brainy.
Republicans are going to blink because their corporate masters hate chaos which a national default would entail.
Tim Scott gets his B.S. in PoliSci from Charleston Southern U. (baptist school).
He was endorsed by Cantor, Palin, & Huckabee in his election.
He’s anti-labor, pro-life, against HCR, and would love to see AZ style immigration laws at the federal level — what is there not to like about his guy?
This ass is the brains behind an impeachment threat? Go ahead righties — following this errant fool proves you don’t know your asses from your elbows.
Nixon was forced out of office (either that or get convicted in the Senate) the impeachment threat has been raised against almost every Democratic President since. And the Democrats could very well have impeached Reagan over Iran-Contra but didn’t. There was also sufficient cause, some of us believe, to have impeached GWB and Cheney, but the Democrats didn’t. Some of us still have the so-called Starr Report about Clinton (Starr having been cautioned by the courts not to go there) and, one characterization of that report I recall as being quite accurate; i.e. pornography with footnotes. If Boehner and Cantor had any maturity, and if they cared at all about this country, they would tell members of their caucus to “put a lid on it.”
I enjoy reading your posts. It’s clear you’ve seen a few things in this world, remembered them, made sense of them, and are are here to share your perspectives with some clarity. Thanks.
Social chaos that even the land that jails people more than any other will have a difficult time controlling the outrage.
They are heading towards disaster and seem happy about it.