I'm not sure however Bush didn't spend more money than any president in the history of the united states during a four year term. Obama has done it in three and he spent ALOT more. Not to mention the bail out loans.Curious if they raised the argument when Bush was in office.
WTF is your little response about. Not even remotely close to what I posted and no clue how you're even jumping to the conclusion I'm saying its Bush's fault. To clarify, I highly doubt the Dems declared the debt ceiling as unconstitutional when Bush raised it several times (now they are - go figure) - quite the opposite of your little rant. Also, you have to be a complete fool to think both parties do not share in this mess. You get settled in - there will be another four more years of your hero.Oh I'm sorry is everything still Bush's fault? For the first two years our president had control of the house and the senate. He could have completely undone every single thing Bush did. But he didn't did he? Maybe its time for liberals to start being accountable for their own train wreak..
~ Thomas JeffersonIf we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Given the laws that have been passed that give the executive branch almost unlimited power during a national "state of emergency" why would the president feel any need to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional? I think there's little doubt that if congress is unable to reach an agreement on the issuance of new debt that the president would just use executive authority to do so without the approval of congress citing national security as a reason. It also isn't like the mainstream media hasn't been conditioning the entire country for this eventuality should it be needed and the mainstream media's message regarding this is 'raise it or we are totally finished as a nation.' Funny thing is TARP + other bailouts where passed and other laws broken on the same premise and doubt among most people grows daily as to whether we'd really have been finished if those things hadn't passed. I myslef am of the opinion that we should have let the banks sink.I find it kinda funny that the article from the OP hints that the president should just declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Is HuffPO advocating for a dictatorship?