Super Congress: Welcome to The United States of Goldman Sachs and Company

reply to post by kro32


He did not summon The Congressional Houses. That would have been the thing to do,
but no...he demanded a meeting. That is not within his power.

"He told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow."

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

And yes, the current Administration is out of money so they want yours now.
And a narrow body of members will now have a ruling power on issues such as Pension Plans,
401K legislation, and so on and so forth.

And as an aside, these 12 people will be appointed, NOT elected.

I disagree. This committee was established to deal with exactly what I presented in my other post on this thread. Once those duties have been completed...it will disband. All they are doing is working to determine where to cut to achieve the reduction voted upon in the debt ceiling deal. There was no broad power to do anything other than work to apply the agreed upon spending cuts throughout the government.Not one single law will be changed from this. You are overracting, as I indicated previously.
--------------------------------------------


And as an aside, these 12 people, while being appointed, will be current members of Congress, which were elected by the American people.

The Patriot Act was supposed to expire, too...and we know how that went! This quote by Reid can be found at numerous online sources:

"...once the debt bill had passed and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was trying to calm conservative nerves about the limited scope of the newly created congress, Reid was standing at a microphone saying: “[On the ‘Super Congress’] there are no constraints….They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything...”

biggovernment.com...
------------------------------
They can look at ANY PROGRAM...has the ability to LOOK AT EVERYTHING!!!

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by kro32

 

He did not summon The Congressional Houses. That would have been the thing to do,
but no...he demanded a meeting. That is not within his power.

"He told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow."

And? Are any of them claiming they didn't want to go and that he breached the Constitution? When my boss demands I show up for a meeting at work I don't claim it's unconstitutional.

If any of those guys didn't want to go they didn't have too, if they were threatened to be there than that would be unconstitutional which they weren't as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Habit4ming

The Patriot Act was supposed to expire, too...and we know how that went! This quote by Reid can be found at numerous online sources:

"...once the debt bill had passed and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was trying to calm conservative nerves about the limited scope of the newly created congress, Reid was standing at a microphone saying: “[On the ‘Super Congress’] there are no constraints….They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything...”

biggovernment.com...
------------------------------
They can look at ANY PROGRAM...has the ability to LOOK AT EVERYTHING!!!

Yep, this is just wrong on so many levels!

Obama was doing “victory laps” around the White House following the bill’s passage in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of his comrades were trying to figure out how to load the new “Super Congress” in their favor.biggovernment.com...

reply to post by kro32


Kro,

Thats not the point whether they wanted to, whether they were happy to,
Obama is not a "boss".

Obama is bound by The Constitution, well he is supposed to be.

Obama does not have the constitutional right to demand that they show up for a meeting.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by kro32

 

Kro,

Thats not the point whether they wanted to, whether they were happy to,
Obama is not a "boss".

Obama is bound by The Constitution, well he is supposed to be.

Obama does not have the constitutional right to demand that they show up for a meeting.

Of course he doesn't and they didn't have to go. I'm just not understanding why your turning this into a Constitutional issue when it has nothing to do with that. I could demand my senators have a meeting with me and they would laugh it off but they wouldn't say it's because it's unconstitutional.

He just sounds like he's being bossy and wants to take charge and any of those people could have said no. Obama never claimed they show up because it's his Constitutional authority did he?

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by kro32

 

He did not summon The Congressional Houses. That would have been the thing to do,
but no...he demanded a meeting. That is not within his power.

"He told Speaker Boehner, I’ve told Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, I’ve told Harry Reid, and I’ve told Mitch McConnell I want them here at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow."

And? Are any of them claiming they didn't want to go and that he breached the Constitution? When my boss demands I show up for a meeting at work I don't claim it's unconstitutional.

kro did you just imply Obama was the"boss" (???) of these representatives from one of the three co-equal branches of our govt? H'es "president" . of the executive branch: not KING.



Er forget it Isee it was already addresed appropriately 3posts up...

Originally posted by kro32

If any of those guys didn't want to go they didn't have too, if they were threatened to be there than that would be unconstitutional which they weren't as far as I can tell.

reply to post by 46ACE


No of course not but after reading my post it might look like that. What I meant was he might have been trying to show leadership by taking charge of a situation that looked out of control frankly because Congress didn't need him involved and he looked very ineffective.

But thanks for the lively debate guys. We will have to continue this in another thread as i'm out of time.

Peace

Originally posted by kro32
I could demand my senators have a meeting with me and they would laugh it off but they wouldn't say it's because it's unconstitutional.

Obama never claimed they show up because it's his Constitutional authority did he?

Not to be rude, but your not the president, so thats not a fair comparison.

There is only one POTUS.

And...it does not make it any less unconstitutional that he did not cite the constitution in his demands.

reply to post by David9176


And the other thing is cuts are not gauranteed, and most certainly this gives this group of 12
a certain set of infuence beyond the lobbists. Taxes could easly be raised in this manner,
most likely for the poor and middle class.

It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership. The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments."

"Approval of the recommendations of the "Super Congress" is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission -- even if it includes tax increases."

The 12-member special congressional committee is worrisome because it could allow for potentially un-debated and potentially unconstitutional tax increases. www.thirdage.com...

edit on 3-8-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

A good point here...

GOP or Dems? Conservatives or liberals? It doesn't matter. We'll all controlled by "The [Goldman] Conspiracy." So why not surrender, let them have the power? The truth is, through their lobbyists and surrogates in Washington, they already rule America.

Does Goldman Sachs Run the Country?

We have to push back in a united effort, to re-take our own nation from elite financial and now politically malignant heavy-hitters, such as this.

This is probably a part of Obama's new legal regime he was referring to when he was speaking about gitmo detianees? (fast forward to 4:54

Link

reply to post by lowundertheradar


Time is running short, very short.

"The Quiet Coup"

www.theatlantic.com...

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by 46ACE

 

No of course not but after reading my post it might look like that. What I meant was he might have been trying to show leadership by taking charge of a situation that looked out of control frankly because Congress didn't need him involved and he looked very ineffective.

But thanks for the lively debate guys. We will have to continue this in another thread as i'm out of time.

Peace

Thanks for the civil response: I know we've had our go 'rounds( mostly re: the 2nd.)..


peace (back atcha')

Originally posted by shortyboy
This is probably a part of Obama's new legal regime he was referring to when he was speaking about gitmo detianees? (fast forward to 4:54

Link

One of my favorite Rachael Maddow clips: that speech by the pres cuts me to the bone; after
freaking out about Bush's patriot act. year before; I think( thought) that was bad enough; and that obama might be the anti bush and repeal it even though I didn't share his politics and didn't vote for him.

reply to post by 46ACE


Yes, and he promised otherwise before he became POTUS.
Promises promises.

What is scary it to realize all of the things that have been done under this regime.
Oh, I meant presidency.

This has got Ron Paul all fired up. ...His latest comments...

he was appalled at the ad hoc 12-member bipartisan committee devised to find further cuts before Thanksgiving, what he calls "this super Congress."

"Where in the world did that come from?" Paul demanded. "And where is that going to lead to? That is monstrous.

I keep looking and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super Congress." latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Originally posted by emaildogs

Originally posted by burntheships


Super Congress members:

Lloyd Blanlfein (Goldman Sachs), Richard Fuld Jr. (Lehmann Bros), Robert Stevens (Lockheed Martin),
Rupert Murdoch (News Corp), Jamie Dimon (J.P. Morgan/Cha­se), Ken Lewis (BOA),
Jeffery Immelt (G.E.) and...well...you get the picture.

edit on 3-8-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Is this speculation on your part? Do Super Congress members have to already be members of congress?

We are all angry about this legislation, but the sensationalized headline could mislead.

How is it misleading?

It's true already, this new invention of the US govt is just another slap in the face of the USA people solidifying the power structure that the corporations already have within the USA.

Now all we have to do is wait for nuremburg-laws to be put in place by that group and we know for sure that preperations for a new dictatorship are well underway. Not that it's not obvious yet but for some reason i see alot of shouting about all the totalitarian legislation and actions taken by the US govt, but no action whatsoever by the general population.

Do you really need to be loaded onto the trains and into the camps before you start realising what theyre trying to do? Seems to me some of you clearly do.

Originally posted by lowundertheradar

A good point here...

GOP or Dems? Conservatives or liberals? It doesn't matter. We'll all controlled by "The [Goldman] Conspiracy." So why not surrender, let them have the power? The truth is, through their lobbyists and surrogates in Washington, they already rule America.

Does Goldman Sachs Run the Country?

We have to push back in a united effort, to re-take our own nation from elite financial and now politically malignant heavy-hitters, such as this.

But . . . but that would be Anti-semetic and RACIST! If we do that than we are just like the Nazis right, RIGHT!?

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by emaildogs

Originally posted by burntheships


Super Congress members:

Lloyd Blanlfein (Goldman Sachs), Richard Fuld Jr. (Lehmann Bros), Robert Stevens (Lockheed Martin),
Rupert Murdoch (News Corp), Jamie Dimon (J.P. Morgan/Cha­se), Ken Lewis (BOA),
Jeffery Immelt (G.E.) and...well...you get the picture.

edit on 3-8-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Is this speculation on your part? Do Super Congress members have to already be members of congress?

We are all angry about this legislation, but the sensationalized headline could mislead.

How is it misleading?

It's true already, this new invention of the US govt is just another slap in the face of the USA people solidifying the power structure that the corporations already have within the USA.

Now all we have to do is wait for nuremburg-laws to be put in place by that group and we know for sure that preperations for a new dictatorship are well underway. Not that it's not obvious yet but for some reason i see alot of shouting about all the totalitarian legislation and actions taken by the US govt, but no action whatsoever by the general population.

Do you really need to be loaded onto the trains and into the camps before you start realising what theyre trying to do? Seems to me some of you clearly do.

HAHA! Funny, Nuremburg laws, considering that it is Jews doing this.