General Discussion

dairydog91

(951 posts)

40. It's almost entirely inaccurate.

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:17 PM

Nov 2013

Congress MAY have an obligation to pay back official government debt (Or maybe the President just has emergency authority to print money in order to meet official obligations if he can't get funding from anywhere else). That's it. That in no way constitutes any binding obligation to pay anything that they've promised to the American people, unless the people hold official debt. Social security obligations (Not the Trust Fund), Medicare, Medicaid, and any other program are not official debt, and Congress has no Constitutional obligation to provide funds for them. Saying that they can be tried "for not paying the bills" apparently comes from the belief that Congress may be subjected to Trial by Talking Point.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sedition [View all] Cryptoad Nov 2013 OP

yup, I've been saying that also gopiscrap Nov 2013 #1

Question? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #2

Refusing to pay the bills. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #3

Can you show me the law concerning that? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #4

Are you playing gotcha? I'm sure you can figure it out. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #6

No, but if you can't cite the law, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #7

There is no specific law. Avalux Nov 2013 #10

So they're not committing sedition? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #13

I never said they were committing sedition. Avalux Nov 2013 #16

Be careful what you wish for, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #20

Seems that there is no longer Cryptoad Nov 2013 #23

The corporations are not currently happy with the GOP. randome Nov 2013 #26

As I said, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #28

Very true. Avalux Nov 2013 #34

"Congress is required to fund the government" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #32

It's almost entirely inaccurate. dairydog91 Nov 2013 #40

I concur but you would be amazed at how persistent this idea has been. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #43

Okay, you want to know the law . . . brush Nov 2013 #37

Apparently, the legal authorities disagree with you. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #38

I see you didn't re-read the graphic with the OP. brush Nov 2013 #39

If they tried that, the only people committing sedition would be the DOJ and the President. dairydog91 Nov 2013 #41

So should Barack Obama have been arrested in 2006 for voting not to raise the debt ceiling? Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #9

It's not the President's job to fund the government. n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #11

He was a Senator at the time. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #12

I stand corrected. Maybe I should go back to bed! n/t Avalux Nov 2013 #17

He wasn't President Obama in 2006, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #14

Its called Sedition,,,,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #5

No, it's not. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #8

Tell you what, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #15

So you are saying ,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #18

Once again, who in any authority is calling for sedition charges to be brought against Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #19

Who said anything about ,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #21

How about, instead of calling for something that's never going to happen, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #22

Are you a Seer Cryptoad Nov 2013 #29

You seem to confuse the 1st Amendment with sedition. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #30

This is more than stupid and irresponislbe shit they are talking,,,,, Cryptoad Nov 2013 #31

In all that gobbeldygoop, there was only one crime, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #33

The author mispelled "stupid" as "impertinent" Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #35

Yes! Let's set the legal precedent that can be used against Democrats the next time Lurks Often Nov 2013 #24

No, a good case for that cannot be made. cthulu2016 Nov 2013 #25

this is just silly - let's drop it DrDan Nov 2013 #27

I'd like to hear this "good case" for the arrest and trial of members of Congress. Dr. Strange Nov 2013 #36

ANd you know who have been spreading rumors about being locked up in camps for years malaise Nov 2013 #42