Boehner and Obama Go Head to Head

Being reported today by the Washington Post is this alarming confrontation that took place at the White House over the near shutdown of the Federal Government on the Budget Bill that Congress forced through.

This is an incredible read if you ask me.

They had about 10 days left before the government would run out of money. Given the global importance of U.S. Treasury securities, failing to extend the debt limit could trigger a worldwide economic meltdown.

Boehner said he believed that he and the others — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — had a plan. He told Obama: We think we can work this out. Give us a little more time. We’ll come back to you. We are not going to negotiate this with you.

Obama objected, saying that he couldn’t be left out of the process. “I’ve got to sign this bill,” he reminded the leaders as they sat in the Cabinet Room off the Oval Office.

“Mr. President,” Boehner challenged, “as I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws. You get to decide if you want to sign them.”

SOURCE

End run around the White House? Why that arrogant little potentate! He needs to think back to all those Constitutional Classes he CLAIMS to have taken and passed. The White House has *ONE* role in the budget process and *ONLY ONE ROLE*. They either sign or veto what is presented to them by the joint houses of Congress following the House and Senate agreeing to the Congressional version for presentation to the President.

He doesn't get credit...he doesn't deserve blame. At least not in NORMAL times.... Now though, the lines are there to be blurred or erased entirely and divisions of power between branches seem only to mean something when it's the White House dividing power FROM the others, never respecting those lines where they CANNOT GO.

I say this for ALL of Congress. Not just the Republicans..and it sounds in all this as if Reid at least understands that. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander and this new Presidential "authority" to force themselves upon the budget process WILL be done by the next Republican President just the same as THIS one. The Republican version will be just as wrong as Obama....but precedent being set is one more chunk of Congressional Authority ceded, if this is all allowed. Fortunately, it was NOT allowed in the end.

Even if the lack of a deal doomed us......making a deal under White House pressure would have been far worse. Not right now, perhaps...but who is the President next term or 3 terms from now? Precedent doesn't care.....just look at the Patriot Act for another example of EXCEPTIONALLY short sighted thinking by a President and the nation eager to support him.

Republicans tired to turn the US in a 3rd world country when they caused the whole debt ceiling fiasco. Not to mention while benefiting their rich friends at the same time.



Any republican that is obsessed with the debt ceiling and cheering it to collapse should read this article by Paul Craig Roberts. He was part of the Reagan admin and co-founded Reaganomics.

The whole republican debt ceiling charade was nothing more than to help their rich friends get richer, have an excuse to strip away social programs, and make Obama/democrats look bad.

This brings us to the most important aspect of the debt ceiling “crisis” that the Republicans are ignoring.

If Republicans become obsessed with their agenda and refuse a reasonable deal, and the Democrats do not cave, the executive branch will be faced with an inability to continue its operations. This could mean, for example, that the troops in the various wars could not be supplied or paid, that air traffic controllers could not be paid, that the US government could not roll over the debt that comes due or issue the new debt that pays for 43% of federal budget expenditures. A shutdown today would be different in its reach from the Newt Gingrich government shutdown in the 1990s. Then the federal government got by with shutting down "nonessential government.” A shutdown today would require halting 43% of federal expenditures. If we were to include the wars, nonessential spending might actually total 43% of expenditures. But, of course, Republicans don't want to include the wars with nonessential spending.

The US dollar could plummet in exchange value and lose its role as world reserve currency. The US would no longer be able to pay its oil bill in its own currency, and as its balance of payments is heavily in the red, the US has no foreign currencies with which to pay its oil import bill. Or its manufactured goods import bill, or any other bill.

We are talking about a crisis beyond anything the world has ever seen. Does anyone think that President Obama is going to just sit there while the power of the US collapses? He doesn’t have to do so. There are presidential directives and executive orders in place, put there by George W. Bush himself, that President Obama can invoke to declare a national emergency, suspend the debt ceiling limit, and continue to issue Treasury debt. This is exactly what would happen.

The consequences would be that the power of the purse would transfer from Congress to the President. It would be the end of the power of Congress. Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have already given away to the President Congress’ Constitutional right to decide whether the country goes to war. Now Congress would lose its power over debt, taxes, and the budget itself.

Republicans need to decide whether the advantage of delivering a blow against “leechdom” is worth such extreme risks.

globalresearch.ca...

what's alarming is obama is trying to be a statesman, and do the right thing, and he is surrounded by treasonous snakes

mcconnell flat out admitted that 2 years before the election, the republicans #1 job was winning the white house

then they went about stalling the recovery

after making the mess in the first place

and now they want back in ?

why would anyone vote them back in to deregulate the banks and big oil and start a war with iran?

gay marriage ?

wtf people

Is this one of those articles written by "anonymous sources"? Why should I believe that? It's on par with a tabloid.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Souce link:


Inside story of Obama’s struggle to keep Congress from controlling outcome of debt ceiling crisis

By Bob Woodward, Saturday, September 8, 5:57 PM

I know you are young, but this Woodward guy has some big credentials.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Souce link:


Inside story of Obama’s struggle to keep Congress from controlling outcome of debt ceiling crisis

By Bob Woodward, Saturday, September 8, 5:57 PM

I know you are young, but this Woodward guy has some big credentials.

Bob Woodward is definitely someone I take seriously. I may not like all he has to say and he was as brutal on Bush as he's been on Obama. Perhaps that IS the mark of a good reporter these days. He's sure earned his credibility the hard way over the years.

To be fair.. Republicans are no better here than Obama. Heck, this DEEP hate within partisanship predates this situation anyway. It started under Clinton...this hate for the other side to the point where cooperation is a filthy word....and it really blew into full form under Bush. Now, this scares me, it's becoming accepted and institutionalized. Our nation cannot stand long if the parties are not just opposing but in open and outright conflict 24/7 on EVERY topic. It takes both sides to fuel this...and both sides are like boiler workers shoveling the fuel in with all possible speed.

I seriously wonder if Boehner was able to get through this "Head to head with Obama" situation without breaking into one of his usual crying-spells. He is quite the regular cry baby!!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
End run around the White House? Why that arrogant little potentate! He needs to think back to all those Constitutional Classes he CLAIMS to have taken and passed. The White House has *ONE* role in the budget process and *ONLY ONE ROLE*. They either sign or veto what is presented to them by the joint houses of Congress following the House and Senate agreeing to the Congressional version for presentation to the President.

He doesn't get credit...he doesn't deserve blame. At least not in NORMAL times.... Now though, the lines are there to be blurred or erased entirely and divisions of power between branches seem only to mean something when it's the White House dividing power FROM the others, never respecting those lines where they CANNOT GO.

I say this for ALL of Congress. Not just the Republicans..and it sounds in all this as if Reid at least understands that. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander and this new Presidential "authority" to force themselves upon the budget process WILL be done by the next Republican President just the same as THIS one. The Republican version will be just as wrong as Obama....but precedent being set is one more chunk of Congressional Authority ceded, if this is all allowed. Fortunately, it was NOT allowed in the end.

Even if the lack of a deal doomed us......making a deal under White House pressure would have been far worse. Not right now, perhaps...but who is the President next term or 3 terms from now? Precedent doesn't care.....just look at the Patriot Act for another example of EXCEPTIONALLY short sighted thinking by a President and the nation eager to support him.

Yes precedents DO matter. The precedent set by Bush disregarding 99% of the entire world to go to war with Iraq is a great example so why not use that one? Maybe Congress should get past their warmongering and passing their pet project bills on the sly to get their buddies funded on the public's dime?

Maybe the entire Congress should be replaced by people elected by the military? Then that new Congress could dismantle the entire government and remove all of the corruption. I would fully support that.

8 years ago NO-ONE DARED challenge the almighty BUSH! If you spoke bad words about the almighty you were scorned and ostracized or even threatened by "Patriots" who never served a day in their life for their country. These same "Patriots" blindly support any war with Islam. They have a massive hard-on for war with Islamic nations as long as they don't have to do anything themselves. They don't care WHY we are at war, only that we are fighting "EVIL".

Now we have Bush #3 called Romney! He brags about all of the changes he will make. He is going to bring millions of jobs with his magic plan. It is magic because no-one knows what it is, even him when asked about it. All he knows is that our military is puny and weak and needs a serious infusion of about 2 trillion dollars a year to get somewhere in the ballpark of his idea of security. WTF?

So how many warmongers are there in America? I see plenty here supporting an openly aggressive warmonger with ideas of invasion spoken loudly while in the same breath accusing the current president of all sorts of things just short of treason. Their justification is a birth certificate? Romney made a business shipping jobs to China and is heavily invested in the war machine hiding his money all over the Caribbean like some pirate. Let us not forget he is all about downsizing every business he "Fixed", but when it comes to the military he is all about making it bigger and spending money that comes from fairy dust just so he can go back to Iraq and then on to Iran and maybe Syria.

All I see is idiots that ignore facts over their Religious beliefs supporting open warfare with Islam. This is insanity! I have never witnessed this level of insanity in my life. If there was a God he would take all of the warmongering insane a-holes and put them in the dessert with all of the radical Islamists and let them fight it out. That will never happen though because they are all scared of their own shadow and would never back up their big talk unless someone else will be doing the fighting for them.

I want to say I am independent and have voted both parties as well as third parties. I am disgusted with both sides and there are few excuses anyone can make for either side. If we stay with democrats who are hell bent on government control and a population dependent on them and the crooks who run them we will lose

Or we go back to trickle down economics that trickle to the top with a widening gap between wealthy and middle americans. Banks and banker run wild. We lose again

That being said, it is absolutely true that the Bush adm. allowed the collapse, whether to pump up their friends or make it look like the economy was booming.

Below is an article written by Elliot Spitzer on Feb 14 2008 about the housing crisis (which hadn't yet bottomed) when he was governor of New York.

Within a few days he was outed for hiring a prostitute (the one in question stated the encounter was in Feb 13.)
He was replaced as governor by a man who admitted to adultery as did his wife

Washington Post

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

...

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

...

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

There is only one reason he was so conveniently outed. Payback and teach others a lesson.

Anyone thinking Dems don't do the same thing need only remember Lyndon Johnson and Clinton with all the deaths surrounding them.

Where is the knight on the white horse that gives a damn?

Obama is such a terrible leader.

Leaders get things done. Obama is just full of excuses as why he can't.

A major issue with this is transparency. It keeps most everyone outside Congress from knowing exactly where the money is going...and so then, when those that do know but don't necessarily want to reveal it in full for the sake of transparency itself, but rather to selectively reveal only the parts necessary to sway our partially informed opinions whichever way serves their purpose...it is almost effortless.

John Boehner has been in the House or the Senate for going on 22 years solid now...I guarantee he knows how to both work Congress and how to put the President in a position conducive to forcing his (Boehner's) agenda.

The major conflicts now are rooted in 8 years of Bush's skirting around the measures set in place to prevent a runaway spending spree and the ways that Congress learned to either work with him or work around him.

Now, the consequences of those actions are manifesting in ways that can no longer be tucked here and there and hidden from notice so that no one asks questions...and now the questions are coming from outside Congress and the answers we are getting are incomplete, partisan, and designed not to inform us but to get us to support continued cuts in the things that we NEED so that they can afford to continue the shifty circumventing of the regular budget process and fund the thing that they WANT.

And in doing that, they also manage to make it look as if it is all the President's fault...and that he is obstructing them and taking powers he does not rightfully possess in the hopes that they will get their GOP President back in the hot seat ASAP.


And the two things to remember in all this, no matter what your opinion of this or that individual might be...is this:

First...When a bill is introduced to Congress...the very first person in Congress to see that bill is also the one that decides its fate in many ways...and that is the Speaker of the House...and currently the Speaker is John Boehner. In addition to deciding which committee(s) a bill should go through before coming back to the House for a vote, the Speaker can set deadlines for how long it should take to come back...or can choose NOT to set a time limit. If there is no deadline and the bill is not voted on...there is another procedure required to get that bill back into the process but it requires a majority house vote. Unless a bill gets a specific schedule and is returned...it basically dies and that is it.

Secondly...it is only IF and when a bill miraculously makes it through committee and passes a House vote AND a Senate vote that it finally makes its way to the President's desk for signing or vetoing. Considering the power over the flow of legislation that is given to the Speaker upon introducing a bill, there is a certain amount of power wielded by the Speaker regarding how long it takes for that bill to be presented for signing or vetoing by the President.

Consider this:
Last February, a bill (H.R. 780)was proposed that would require ALL spending in Afghanistan to be directly applied ONLY to measures and activities facilitating our withdrawal in the speediest but safest manner. The bill was sent to not one but TWO committees and it has not moved since then. Any other amendments presented for bills already enacted into law, for the purpose of wrapping up that war and pulling out have met a similar fate through a different process since amendments are not bills but revisions or additions to law.

ALSO...I read about this conflict between Boehner and Obama elsewhere the other day, and there is more to it...Boehner would not bend on some point other than what the article posted in this thread stated, in addition, that is; he waited to try to force his way and Obama dug his heels in...the finer details elude me now!...I will try to find the link later and post it...I looked just now but there is a lot of Boehner coming up with Google and I will tell you this...I have been reading budget and defense legislation heavy for the last three days and just about everything I have read in the last half hour that Boehner is claiming about the President is patently false.

I need to be more organized about the stuff I find so I can present it when I need to...reading through the laws and bills bogs me down and I tend to forget where I read this or that tidbit and then I have to search again.

Here is a very good source for behind the scenes info: OMB Watch

Originally posted by Carseller4
Obama is such a terrible leader.

Leaders get things done. Obama is just full of excuses as why he can't.

Ignorant of the political process aren't you? The president can't just do things on his own if he were to do things like that then he would be a dictator. Congress has to agree on what he wants to do to get anything done and when the republicans made the statement "they will do whatever it takes to make sure he is a one term president" just shows they really care nothing for this country just their party.

reply to post by queenannie38

Secondly...it is only IF and when a bill miraculously makes it through committee and passes a House vote AND a Senate vote that it finally makes its way to the President's desk for signing or vetoing. Considering the power over the flow of legislation that is given to the Speaker upon introducing a bill, there is a certain amount of power wielded by the Speaker regarding how long it takes for that bill to be presented for signing or vetoing by the President.

In all fairness we should also take a look at the other side, the Senate. Here is just a partial list of the jobs bills that Harry Reid never allowed to come up for a vote in the Senate. Below is just 6 of 18 jobs bills.

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act • Introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH) on March 2, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 292-130 on March 31, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act • Introduced by Rep. Fred Upton (MI) on March 3, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 37, a Resolution of disapproval regarding the FCC’s regulation of the Internet and broadband industry practices • Introduced by Rep. Greg Walden (OR) on February 16, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 240 to 179 on April 8, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act • Introduced by Rep. John Mica (FL) on May 26, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 239 to 184 on July 13, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act • Introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy (WI) on April 1, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 241-173 on July 21, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act • Introduced by Rep. Tim Scott (SC) on July 19, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 238-186 on September 15, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

remainder here

And as I recall, as soon as the full 'audit the fed' was passed the house 327 to 98, Reid said it would not be put up for vote.

Bob Woodward carries significant bipartisan credibility So I have to admit It looks like over the top partisanship occurred. With each side pushing their pet agenda like chess moves. I am not proud to be associated with such shenanigans."Obstructionism" to press your political agenda is just political reality;

However"obstructionism" to inflict "political damage" is just wrong headed."Badform"

Originally posted by liveandlearn

In all fairness we should also take a look at the other side, the Senate. Here is just a partial list of the jobs bills that Harry Reid never allowed to come up for a vote in the Senate. Below is just 6 of 18 jobs bills.

Yes, that is fair.

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act • Introduced by Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH) on March 2, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 292-130 on March 31, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act • Introduced by Rep. Fred Upton (MI) on March 3, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 37, a Resolution of disapproval regarding the FCC’s regulation of the Internet and broadband industry practices • Introduced by Rep. Greg Walden (OR) on February 16, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 240 to 179 on April 8, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act • Introduced by Rep. John Mica (FL) on May 26, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 239 to 184 on July 13, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act • Introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy (WI) on April 1, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 241-173 on July 21, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 2587, Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act • Introduced by Rep. Tim Scott (SC) on July 19, 2011 • Passed the House by a vote of 238-186 on September 15, 2011 • Senate has taken no action to date

HR 872 4 other versions of this bill
HR 910 3 other versions of this bill
HR 37 In committee
HR 2018 3 other versions of this bill
HR 1315 3 other versions of this bill
HR 2587 3 other versions of this bill

He might be saving us money, actually...cutting down on redundancy?
I'm not saying that is what he is doing, just speculating.

remainder here

And as I recall, as soon as the full 'audit the fed' was passed the house 327 to 98, Reid said it would not be put up for vote.

What bill # is that one, do you know?
I can look it up but later...I'm out of time for the moment.

reply to post by queenannie38

What bill # is that one, do you know? I can look it up but later...I'm out of time for the moment.

It seems to be HR 459

reply to post by liveandlearn


From what I can tell...it gets complicated at this point so I'm only going on what I understand...but it appears that it went to Senate committees after being referred on July 26, when it was received there. Two of the three committees seem to be done with it, with the third just reporting a status of 'referral.' They might be waiting on that third committee or maybe it is just a matter of it waiting for action on the floor of the Senate, which would be a vote.

The Senate Majority Leader, however, cannot prevent it from going to a vote, if all the committees return it for a vote, from what I can tell. If that were possible, then the procedures of Congress would be faulty. It almost got 'tabled' in the House which means it is killed if it is tabled. But nothing like that so far in the Senate. At any rate, if someone motions for it to be tabled, a vote must be taken for that to be approved, too.

Here's the summary

reply to post by phantomjack


While Boehner was in fact right about what he is stated to have said, the fact is that Obama wanted to be in the loop on the matter and I think Boehner and company saw that as him trying to hijack it for political means. It could also be to simply run Obama's credibility through the mud. Let's face it. Congress is far more inept than Obama which is saying a helk of a lot. These people have hijacked the entire Nations sustainability from start to finish. They wield all of the power and Obama is not playing ball with them and wants to relieve that power from them because of there BS tactics. Both the Legislative and Executive branches are fighting for power. Plain and simple. Now one can question and assume what each sides intentions are all they want but judge by the actions and lack of actions from both branches and it become more clear.

It is on the record and wel known that Obama has no bond or relationship with Congress in the slightest. He detests the whole lot of them and vice versa.