Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit - TO 14.3 TRILLION In National DEBT!!

[dinarded]

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer

[hoping...]

And the pace of graying hair escalates ... Homeboy's eyes were soooo much bigger than his stomach ... in way over his head.

Notice Joe (assasination insurance) Biden poised in the background.

[Mongo]

This is a planned financial crash of our GOV. by the Federal Reserve( private bank)......STOP THE FED.!!

[munster]

I was hoping our VP was in Iraq yesterday begging for the RV. This vote is the tipping point. Our congress won't or shouldn't allow another increase to the debt ceiling. Mexican standoff here....Will an RV save the day? Will the US default on it's debt?

[Baghdaddy]

The Dems obviously didn't get the message with Brown's election to the senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. Or maybe they did and they want to grab as much as possible before the congressional elections. Either way, this is only going to build more resentment and resistance to Obama's and Pelosi's grabs at personal glory at the expense of the country.

[k98nights]

Dear God save us from the Socialists!!!

[Soldier]

Who cares?? I didn't vote for this Dumba** and I hope everyone who did get exactly what that wanted and deserve. This has nothing to do w/ an RV. Quit wasting your time post stupid stuff like this.

[praxis]

Dear God save us from the Socialists!!!

Please take some time and research what socialism is and what it isn't instead of some over-simplified, over-generalized comment. And, please don't compare Stalin and Mao to true Socialism and please don't reference Marx's old Communist Manifesto as modern day marxism.

Then post about it with substance!

[praxis]

Even if McCain was elected this debt sealing wouldv'e been raised as well. The wheels were already set in motion before the election. Anybody who understands simple exponential math would understand that instead of using it as a cheap political rant. The economic system is in shambles because of both parties' greed tied to large corporate and banking special interest.

[praxis]

The Dems obviously didn't get the message with Brown's election to the senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. Or maybe they did and they want to grab as much as possible before the congressional elections. Either way, this is only going to build more resentment and resistance to Obama's and Pelosi's grabs at personal glory at the expense of the country.

While Republicans and fake populist "teabaggers" are celebrating the MASS. defeat of the democrats like they just won the superbowl, the Supreme Court just took away more power and freedom away from citizens than Obamacare could ever possibly do, but I don't hear teabaggers and fake populists and blind republican sheep on here even mentioning it!

[hoping...]

While Republicans and fake populist "teabaggers" are celebrating the MASS. defeat of the democrats like they just won the superbowl, the Supreme Court just took away more power and freedom away from citizens than Obamacare could ever possibly do, but I don't hear teabaggers and fake populists and blind republican sheep on here even mentioning it!

McCain-Feingold did far more to restrict political free speech than to curtail the influence of money on politics.

So now corporations and not just unions can contribute to campaigns … one union alone gave Obama 60 million.

Also, what about media corporations? Are ALL corporations to be censored during elections? Why are media corporation accepted? Oh, that’s right … First Amendment protection! Everybody has this protection … ABC, CBS, NBC etc. Liberals work for corporations yet they despise them. They also hate liberty, competition and debate. The media and the Democratic Party hate competition and debate … but now the playing field has been leveled and all corporations (not just ones that happen to be media outlets) will have a political voice.

[dinarded]

Who cares?? I didn't vote for this Dumba** and I hope everyone who did get exactly what that wanted and deserve. This has nothing to do w/ an RV. Quit wasting your time post stupid stuff like this.

Gee, that's why it's posted in "off-topic" posts.

[praxis]

McCain-Feingold did far more to restrict political free speech than to curtail the influence of money on politics.

So now corporations and not just unions can contribute to campaigns … one union alone gave Obama 60 million.

Also, what about media corporations? Are ALL corporations to be censored during elections? Why are media corporation accepted? Oh, that’s right … First Amendment protection! Everybody has this protection … ABC, CBS, NBC etc. Liberals work for corporations yet they despise them. They also hate liberty, competition and debate. The media and the Democratic Party hate competition and debate … but now the playing field has been leveled and all corporations (not just ones that happen to be media outlets) will have a political voice.

Wow, they really got you fooled!

Answer me these questions, Do you really think corporations should be considered "legal persons" and deserve all the "legal rights" of a person including this "1st amendment right to free speech?" If so, then why are individuals like you and me are restricted to contributing just a couple of thousands of dollars, yet any corporation can now donate millions? That does not sound like equality of freedom of speech to me?

Here is another telling fact: If corporations are really "legal persons" then how come those corporations are not allowed to vote?! "Hi, my name is Goldman Sachs, I am here to cast my vote! Here is my photo ID, let me sign my name and cast my ballot!"

But, go ahead hoping, keep living in your Matrix provided Republican vs. Democrat dreamworld they have provided for you. Ignorance is Bliss! It is easier that way!

[hoping...]

It's not the money. That's just a means to an end to create the speech itself. Preventing the speech that was created through use of money is what got most of McCain-Feingold and other federal regulations in trouble. In order to restrict free speech rights you have to show an overwhelming need to do so and be pretty convincing in making the argument that doing it serves a greater public good than allowing it to happen.

The case the government was making in advocating for keeping McCain Feingold and other such federal regulations as the law of the land, when the Solicitor General argued on behalf of the government that the Court should uphold the current law, went off the rails when the SG argued that the FEC would have had the power to prohibit the distribution of a book called "Hillarious" in the runup to the election the same as it actually did when it enjoined Citizens United from airing and distributing the movie "Hillarious." That was a bridge too far for the majority in this decision to accept.

I think a lot of the hyperventilating on the part of McCain-Feingold supporters is overblown. Our current president himself became the first in the history of campaign finance in this country to forsake public funding for his campaign and all of that money is still going to make its way to a campaign through a myriad of other routes. And look at Scott Brown; his campaign is estimated to have raised over 12 MILLION dollars in the final seven days before election day. So far, I haven't seen anything that M-F did other than to be a minor irritant and to give outsized power to PACS and 527s aligned with special interest groups. In this regard, why are we trying to restrict coporations from having their own place at the trough? Because the playing field will be a little more level? I give voters a bit more credit than do the wonks -- mainly those on the Left -- who think the "non-elite" are just too stupid to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to messaging.

[praxis]

Hoping,

I think you are missing the point. You keep talking about McCain-Feingold. I am talking about the fact that corporations should never have been considered individual people with individual rights in the first place which was a disasterous interpretation of a Supreme Ct ruling decades before Mccain-Feingold. That UNCONSTITUTIONAL court precedent is the only thing that allows this new UNCONSTITUTIONAL rulling to exist.

The real issue is not corporations and other voices were being denied their first amendment rights or the ability to use money to voice their opinion, the real is is the corporations money to be able to drown out the voice of the people regardless of party affiliation. This ruling allows corporations now more then ever to bribe/threatten incumbents with sweet campaign contributions to stay quiet and not make pass policies that hurt them or threaten to spend even more $ to kick them out.

If this method was not effective, then all of those PACs, 537s, lobbyists would be out of business. How can you talk about a union given Obama 60 million is bad, and think this ruling allowing organizations to spent unlimited funds is better? It's only worse! If you think there is a problem with that crap now, WATCH OUT BECAUSE YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET!

[bmrlaone]

This rotten president and his disgusting administration and the pathetic deomcratic congress will break this country. We are on the verge of total financial collapse. Yet you guys wanted 'change'. Oh, your getting change alright!

[hoping...]

If you don't think that this corporate flow of money is not already occurring then you should think again. This may, in fact, put it more above board.

The problem isn't the Constitution; the problem (if one insists on regarding it as a problem) is practical reality. Money isn't literally speech, but practically speaking, speech does require money, at least in the modern world. Consequently, if you believe in freedom of the former, you also have to believe in freedom of the latter. Otherwise, you're merely fooling yourself.

[praxis]

If you don't think that this corporate flow of money is not already occurring then you should think again. This may, in fact, put it more above board.

The problem isn't the Constitution; the problem (if one insists on regarding it as a problem) is practical reality. Money isn't literally speech, but practically speaking, speech does require money, at least in the modern world. Consequently, if you believe in freedom of the former, you also have to believe in freedom of the latter. Otherwise, you're merely fooling yourself.

Hoping, you get it, but you are not getting it. TheUnconstitutional Supreme Ct precedent that i am referring to is one of the main reasons why the corporate flow of money has been occuring in campaigns for decades. So, this new supreme court ruling only makes it worse.

I never said the problem is with the Constitution. The Constitution is fine. The problem is all of these laws allowing loopholes in campaign financing are based off of an illegal Supreme Ct precedent.

Denying the fact that unlimited money from organizations hurts our democracy means you are only fooling yourself by allowing the very CORPORATE MASS MEDIA money machine to be able to convince of that!

Take net neutrality for example. Imagine if all knowledge and access to power was able to people who had internet access, but only the extremely wealthy could afford that access, and 95% of the ordinary citizens were left out. Is that democratic? Is that the American Dream? Is that what our founding father's wanted when they created the Constitution?

I am sorry. Maybe I am just not explaining it very well, but I can not understand how any american you believes in what the Constitution can think this recent Supreme Ct ruling helps our democracy.

[ladyblue]

Well, I'm not sorry I voted for him. Bush didn't do a darn thing for me. Maybe he did you. But he didn't do SQUAT FOR ME. Quiet frankly, the only people he did anything for were the rich and big business. He definately didn't do anything for those in need ( New Orleans ). Remember that mess? What exactly did he or his administration do for them?

You do have one good point, this is not a political site. It is for information on the dinar. It is posted to get just the response it's getting. Agitation, hostility..... Something to talk about in the chat room.

Oh well, I guess I gave them what they wanted.