USA debt ceiling - executive orders

CollardGreens

Today in the local news....

That "blankety blank" president here in the states just said he will pull an executive order on the debt ceiling raising it at will without congress!!!!
(who can say Dictator)

He also is leading us to believe that he will pull an executive order on the gun control.

If he does these things I see a civil war breaking out and many Americans are already threating it (google it, people are p1ssed big time). He is pushing ppl into a corner and they are not going to take it any longer. If this happens as much as I hate the cold, I'm taking my family to Canada - Nova Scotia is looking pretty good right now.....salmon fishing, yeah, reckon that's gonna be the new life.

rockonollie

Yeah but those threatening revolt are all talk.......civil war is not possible in the US today.......with the strength of the US military, any revolt, regardless of how well organized, will be crushed in a day.

The power of an executive order is in place for this very situation, allowing the president to take action when congress are unable to act.

I don't agree with it, but extremists will always talk of revolution.

clairefontaine

rockonollie wrote: »

Yeah but those threatening revolt are all talk.......civil war is not possible in the US today.......with the strength of the US military, any revolt, regardless of how well organized, will be crushed in a day.

The power of an executive order is in place for this very situation, allowing the president to take action when congress are unable to act.

I don't agree with it, but extremists will always talk of revolution.

I dont necessarily see civil war either, but I could see domestic terrorism particularly from the southeast, who never recovered from the first civil war and are pretty pretty angry.

CollardGreens

This would depend, the military has to back the gov and right now they are not happy campers. Since their pay has been cut and decisions they (most of them) don't morally agree with it could backfire.

I'm not just seeing this in the south/east (and yes, I do resemble that remark, lol) just take a look at West Virginia that use to be on the dems side, they are angry that bho is cutting back on coal and they are getting poorer and poorer. The unions in the north are not happy with him either anymore. I think he's digging a pretty deep hole he will not be able to get out of.

But of couse this is just coming from one of those redneck civil war leftover women........

clairefontaine

I cannot ever remember a president who has gotten away with so much secrecy and increases of executive power. We had a a whole shebang over Clinton and Lewinsky but nothing at all on how he can kill US citizens without any transparent protocol?

Even the democrats are sick of him. If Northern unions are not happy with him, well then.... and I heard an LA Times columnist ranting about him recently.

Great article from the Atlantic Monthly.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/a-senators-lonely-crusade-to-learn-the-cias-secrets/267180/

FISMA

CollardGreens wrote: »

He also is leading us to believe that he will pull an executive order on the gun control.

His use of executive order is disturbing and should be concerning all citizens, especially when used on matters of the Constitution.

In the States, we have three branches of govt: Judicial, Legislative, and Executive.

Executive orders should be limited to the Executive. Again, using this order to bypass the legislative and judiciary is disturbing to say the least.

Ludo

Yeah he is so unpopular that hasn't a hope of being re-elected... Oh wait.

Duck Soup

What's disturbing is members of Congress who seem to think that the debt ceiling is an instrument of political torture. The debt ceiling is an agreement not to raise spending but to honour the previous debts incurred. It was routinely passed under Bush Jnr, Bush Snr, Reagan, Clinton etc., etc.

Blocking what has for decades been a routine administrative chore has put the entire trust of the world financial institutions in American creditworthiness at risk. It directly led to the downgrading of the US credit rating.

This is insanity. This is juvenile posturing to show the voters back home what a deficit bad-áss you are. If an administration finds a House of Representatives that wants to cut America's nose to spite the President's face, then it will take extraordinary measures to keep the Republic running. And most people in America will agree with him.

Black Swan

CollardGreens wrote: »

Today in the local news....

That "blankety blank" president here in the states just said he will pull an executive order on the debt ceiling raising it at will without congress!!!!
(who can say Dictator)

He also is leading us to believe that he will pull an executive order on the gun control.

If he does these things I see a civil war breaking out and many Americans are already threating it (google it, people are p1ssed big time). He is pushing ppl into a corner and they are not going to take it any longer. If this happens as much as I hate the cold, I'm taking my family to Canada - Nova Scotia is looking pretty good right now.....salmon fishing, yeah, reckon that's gonna be the new life.

It is strongly recommended that you learn a bit more about the US government and its history as pertains to Executive Orders before repeating or otherwise spreading Google rumours or media spin about "civil war" in America.

An excellent and factual source regarding Executive Orders (and their dispositions) issued by the last 14 US presidents since President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) appears in this National Archives: Federal Register link. They are numbered in the thousands and indexed by subject (EO 5,075 to 13,632) that cover a vast array of topics, including those that pertain to the funding of the US government for each presidential administration and programme.

Further, you may find that there were many EOs issued by several past administrations that were associated with the Executive Branch's role, interpretation, enforcement, and administration of its responsibilities to the US Constitution and its Amendments. Many of these EOs may have been controversial at the time (e.g., Obama's EOs appear tiny in consequence when compared to the magnitude of those issued during the American Civil Rights Era), but none in this National Archive link came even close to a (2nd) "civil war."

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

It is strongly recommended that you learn a bit more about the US government and its history as pertains to Executive Orders before repeating or otherwise spreading Google rumours or media spin about "civil war" in America.

An excellent and factual source regarding Executive Orders (and their dispositions) issued by the last 14 US presidents since President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) appears in this National Archives: Federal Register link. They are numbered in the thousands and indexed by subject (EO 5,075 to 13,632) that cover a vast array of topics, including those that pertain to the funding of the US government for each presidential administration and programme.

Further, you may find that there were many EOs issued by several past administrations that were associated with the Executive Branch's role, interpretation, enforcement, and administration of its responsibilities to the US Constitution and its Amendments. Many of these EOs may have been controversial at the time (e.g., Obama's EOs appear tiny in consequence when compared to the magnitude of those issued during the American Civil Rights Era), but none in this National Archive link came even close to a (2nd) "civil war."

I've personally discovered that such factual information is not welcomed by people who are prepared for 'civil war'.

I could go on a full blown ranting tizzy about media spin and the way people have gotten themselves so worked up. Meanwhile, if you are invested in the weapon or gold industry, you've had a great fiscal quarter.

I've learned that angry people will be angry. They just want to believe Obama will break down their door and take their guns, they don't want to be reasoned with, or explained to the hundred reasons why it will never get within a shadow of what people actually think is going to happen. Civil war? The DoD has plans to invade everything from Canada to Papua New Guinea. The DoD has a pretty accurate assessment on file of how many thousands/millions of casualties would occur from a civil war; they have a pretty good grasp on what it would do to the economy, the world economy, and global politics, not to mention national security. Nobody is going to take any action that threatens those possibilities by a pretty considerable gain. The same applies to domestic acts of terrorism, something which I would personally have to see first before I believed we were anywhere near something approaching civil war, right along with a bonafide attempt of a state or two trying to secede, and not just a facebook petition either.

None of that matters to people who are convinced its going to happen though. They don't want their mind changed either. If you try to reason with them, they just assume that you're trying to placate them long enough to take away their 2nd amendment rights when they let their guard down. Like you're an agent in the ****ing conspiracy. No, they would rather listen to the NRA and the media outlets that support their already-warped paranoid delusion that we're one molotov cocktail shy of storming the white house lawn

Black Swan

clairefontaine wrote: »

I cannot ever remember a president who has gotten away with so much secrecy and increases of executive power.

It would seem that this proclivity to secrecy and/or power comes to many US presidents. To name only a few from American history:

• Teddy Roosevelt's White Fleet
• Harry Truman's Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• John Kennedy's Bay of Pigs
• Richard Nixon's Watergate
• Ronald Reagan's Iran Contra Affair
• GW Bush's Iraqi WMD>2nd Persian Gulf War

CollardGreens

all I can say is, amazing......... :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

It would seem that this proclivity to secrecy and/or power comes to many US presidents. To name only a few from American history:

• Teddy Roosevelt's White Fleet
• Harry Truman's Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• John Kennedy's Bay of Pigs
• Richard Nixon's Watergate
• Ronald Reagan's Iran Contra Affair
• GW Bush's Iraqi WMD>2nd Persian Gulf War

You have an interesting selection there. How does the Great White Fleet count as secret or an abuse of power?

clairefontaine

Black Swan wrote: »

It would seem that this proclivity to secrecy and/or power comes to many US presidents. To name only a few from American history:

• Teddy Roosevelt's White Fleet
• Harry Truman's Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• John Kennedy's Bay of Pigs
• Richard Nixon's Watergate
• Ronald Reagan's Iran Contra Affair
• GW Bush's Iraqi WMD>2nd Persian Gulf War

If you read the article in the Atlantic I posted it is quite something. The events you are talking about aren't quite what I meant. The article is better at explaining it than I am.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have an interesting selection there. How does the Great White Fleet count as secret or an abuse of power?

Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet" exemplified his "Big Stick" diplomacy, which suggested a not-so-subtle shift in some of the power from Congress to the President/Commander In Chief, if not to make war, then to threaten war, especially towards the Japanese following the Russo-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905). Consequently, it was no coincidence that the Great White Fleet sailed 16 December 1907, not long after Japan's win, circumnavigating the globe.

When Teddy Roosevelt sought funding from Congress for his global demonstration of power, he was at first denied, this being a very costly "Big Stick" exhibition by the president of a nation with a considerably smaller GDP than today. According to The World Cruise of the Great White Fleet “The undeterred Roosevelt replied in his typically brusque and forthright manner that he already had sufficient funding to get the fleet to the Pacific, and if the Congress wanted the fleet to return to the Atlantic it would have to authorize the additional funding;” i.e., Teddy Roosevelt sent the fleet around the world against the wishes of Congress, which seems to be a similar issue raised in this thread about Obama threatening to go against the wishes of Congress with Executive Orders.

The "abuse of power" is your terminology, not "increases of executive power" referenced in my reply to clairefontaine. It's acknowledged that the American system of government is to a large measure adversarial, as exhibited by its two party system, and the dynamic between the three branches of government. In the latter case this is a part of the check-and-balance system, with the current president, and those presidents before him, struggling to advance the interests of the Executive Branch, sometimes at the expense of the other two branches.

Overheal

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

Obama - 138 (Sep 2012); GWB - 291 Clinton - 364; GHW - 166; Reagan - 381; Carter - 320; Ford - 169; Nixon - 346; etc

Denerick

For a start, if the American far right did provoke a civil war (The likelihood of that happening is so remote that it shouldn't even be considered as a possible scenario, but I'll bite) then it would be a very swift one. Right wing Republicans and spineless democrats have systematically given the federal government sweeping powers over the past decade to arrest, detain, and moniter people suspected of engaging in activites contrary to the interests of national security. The Federal goverment would be able to identify, locate, and eliminate 99% of the far right leadership within a couple of days. The remaining gang of pepped up militia folk, the occasional ex-military, and the extreme gun nuts wouldn't stand a chance in the face of the full force of the greatest military machine ever assembled by mankind.

No, I'd think a 'Jericho' style insurrection would have a better chance of success in terms to taking down the federal government, but unfortunately that show was cancelled after season 2 so we don't know how that all turned out.

clairefontaine

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

Obama - 138 (Sep 2012); GWB - 291 Clinton - 364; GHW - 166; Reagan - 381; Carter - 320; Ford - 169; Nixon - 346; etc

I've heard a few people joke this is BUSH 2s fourth term.

CollardGreens

The Federal goverment would be able to identify, locate, and eliminate 99% of the far right leadership within a couple of days

@ Denerick, the above is of course just a snip of your quote but I would like to understand better what you are saying. The American federal government (i.e. senate and congress) is made up of dems AND republicans, are you saying that you believe that the dems will remove the republicans from office, eliminate them within a couple of days?

I do not want to rush to judgment of your post without making sure you typed what it appears you typed, or should I say meant what it came across as.

clairefontaine

I don't understand that post either.

Denerick

CollardGreens wrote: »

@ Denerick, the above is of course just a snip of your quote but I would like to understand better what you are saying. The American federal government (i.e. senate and congress) is made up of dems AND republicans, are you saying that you believe that the dems will remove the republicans from office, eliminate them within a couple of days?

I do not want to rush to judgment of your post without making sure you typed what it appears you typed, or should I say meant what it came across as.

Think bigger! In essence there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, both essentially believe in a strong federal state (Although Republicans pander to the far right, nobody becomes a federal politician with the aim of reducing its scope). If there were a revolution in my hypothetical scenario, the far right militia/anti New World Order types would lead the revolt, and of course the federal government is so good at tracking down and eliminating threats to national security that the likelihood of success or any meaningful war effort would be slim indeed.

Overheal

Thats assuming that they had the full backing of the military. A hypothetical revolution, for the right reasons, would lack that kind of universal support. The way the military is structured, as I understand it, prevents all but the most destructive portions of the arsenal from being used by a handful of people. You have the 5 Branches, each broken down into Fleets, Divisions, etc. as well as National Guard units, in additional to regular police forces, and any militias that spring up.

Denerick

MadYaker wrote: »

I can't believe we are having a serious discussion about a civil war in the US. Wait a minute, is this after hours?!?!

The far right like to claim that this is where gun control measures, 'socialism', and other universal ills will lead the country. Unfortunately in an American context discussion of such an eventuality is not as laughable or as pathetic it might be in other countries.