But the investigation concluded that Scooter Libby - Cheney’s Chief of Staff - leaked Plame’s status to Judith Miller and then lied about it to the Grand Jury. So it’s not out of the question that he did that at Cheney’s discretion, right?
Haha, as opposed to the Bush this and the Bush that, right?
There is no evidence of that. But is it “out of the question”, is it impossible? No. But it is also not a statement of fact, correct?
One of the men who leaked the information was Richard Armitage. But Lewis Libby has also admitted he leaked the same information to several other people, including reporters. There have been four reporters who have admitted they were given this classified information.
Many people would see the evidence of these multiple simultaneous leaks of the same classified information and consider the likelihood that this pattern indicates these leaks were planned by a higher authority.
As much as I detest this ridiculous hijack (another of DT’s conspiracy theories)… And Scooter Libby was prosecuted. Which makes the original comparison of Cheney and Manning rather silly.
Correct. I didn’t mean to imply that there’s a good case against Cheney. I mostly meant to nitpick Libby. There’s no proof against Cheney whatsoever, and the rest is up to what you believe. (I believe he was in up to his neck in the “wont someone rid me of this meddlesome diplomat” way, the crooked old bastard)
Threads like this make me wonder if liberals understand what the point of a debt ceiling even is. Listening to the people here, you’d think it was something that was just supposed to be magically lifted every time we ran out of money. Oh, and don’t even think about attaching strings to that raising…no, no. You have to just simply raise it like it doesn’t even matter. Like it’s not even there.
Despite Republicans having sent two bills to the Senate to raise the ceiling, Democrats just wouldn’t allow it. And somehow, the Dope thinks Republicans are the ones holding the country hostage! And on top of that, tomorrow, they’ll still call the Pubs the “party of no”. Un-fucking-believable, this place is!
Whatever we do, let’s not start with the Manning stuff.
Do you understand what it is? It needs to be raised to pay existing bills, not something out in the future. Stuff already authorized by Congress. No, it should be “magically” raised, but I don’t think most people understand that we’re not talking about some hypothetical need way out in the future. It’s needed right now.
Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.
It’s a magical world!
According to Wikipedia, the first debt ceiling law was enacted to enable more flexible borrowing for WWI. AFAIK, the US is the only country that has a debt ceiling. Since 1917, up until now through shifting majorities it’s been lifted no strings attached. Even in the years after WWII when the federal debt was about 30% higher (compared to GDP) than it is today.
So yeah, that’s pretty much what’s supposed to happen - congress votes to lift it when it needs lifting, no strings attached.
Well you know, congress gets to decide once a year how much money is going to be spent and it gets to decide how much revenue is gonna be brought in. The debt ceiling is superflous which is why it’s usually raised as a part of the budget in latter years.
Because they included an amendment that would make it much harder to raise taxes in the future and setting a hard cap on fed spending at 18% (?) of GDP.
Well the republican congressional leadership said “give us what we want or we wont raise the debt ceiling, allowing a default to happen”. No-one’s ever dared do that before. I guess next time around, progressives say: “revoke the 2nd amendment or else we wont raise the debt ceiling”. Or something. “Give us an up or down vote on single payer in the Senate”, the debt ceiling gets raised if the bill passes congress and is signed by the POTUS. Fair cop?
You’re in California? And you think the Tea Party is trying to ruin the economy?! The Tea Party is actually trying to save the world from California!
The Tea Party is trying to save our country from itself and people like you. I can’t believe that there are those out there that think we should just keep running our national debt up and up, or that the federal budget shouldn’t be balanced.
This is not a case of Right vs. Left, this is case of Rational Thought vs. Insanity.
You can’t win a game of chicken against folks who are willing to go off the brink.
Californias economy was wrecked by exactly such a constitutional amendment, requiring supermajorities for tax-hikes, that the republicans are trying to extort as ransom from their little hostage taking game.
Ask yourself this: higher revenues shrinks or removes the deficit. Why would you want to make it harder to increase revenues in a balanced budget amendment?
Sure I’m not saying it will happen. But really, as a progressive, what interest do I have in letting on that that’s the case?
The deficit is a real problem. But the Tea Party does not have the answer. Their main platform is an absolute refusal to consider any form of tax increase. And there is no way you will ever eliminate the deficit without a tax increase.
It’s not an issue of cutting government spending. This is a debt. That means the money has already been spent.
That’s one way of looking at it, but not the only way. Assuming you meant the budget as opposed to the economy, we had a nice little surplus a few years ago and it got spent without regard to future revenues. That surplus came during a time when a supermajority was needed to raise taxes.
That… or a shit ton of spending. And the fact that California is content to run business/companies/corporations out of the state.
Well i’m no expert on California, so I’ll concede the point for now and fall back to the position that such an amendment constrains a valid policy tool in a way that is extremely unattractive to progressives. We want the peoples representatives to decide whether to raise taxes in the same way we decide pretty much everything else and then face voters in the next election.
Sure. And it’s extremely attractive to conservatives and libertarians. They don’t trust politicians to spend money wisely. They want a speed bump for when taxes can be raised.