Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) plans to introduce a bill in Congress that has nearly every political analyst and economist now scratching their heads. The bill has already infamously been termed the “pay China first” bill, as it would require the United States Treasury to pay America’s foreign debtors before making payments on Social Security or veteran’s benefits among other budgetary items.
The law is written in an attempt to avoid a United States default. In an effort to avoid default in case they do not raise the debt ceiling, Republicans would like to force the United States Treasury Department to pay foreign lenders like China for the payments owed on our debt. The only problem is that many economists believe the plan would not work. If the bill was passed and enforced foreign lenders and credit rating agencies would still see that the United States government is “defaulting” on the obligations to its own citizens. Just as an individual’s credit rating goes down no matter who they default to, in the same manner creditors would downgrade the United States if we fail to meet any of our future obligations.
The practical effects of the law for millions of Americans could also be disastrous. While the Treasury Department makes payments to China and international banks, senior citizens and veterans would be forced to go without the monthly checks many of them rely upon. The law would not be effective in avoiding the consequences of default, but would be very effective in depriving many of the most needy Americans of the entitlement benefits they have paid into over the years.
Comments
What a dope.
Imagine being a Korean War vet, who survived the war, is now in retirement, and is now being told that his Social Security and Medicare that he depends on dearly to survive is now being threatened in order to pay off China.
Think about that, please.
We owe ourselves the majority of this money.
Slip of the tongue or just an ignorant Senator?
"We have 3 branches of Government, we have a House we have a Senate we have a President."
If Palin said this these fringers would be all over it no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY&feature=player_embedded
Quote mining out of context - he clearly was talking about the three entities necessary to enact legislation.
I don't like Schumer - but this is simply another in a long series of examples of his tongue getting ahead of his brain.
"Quote mining out of context"
Your funny as hell.
Watch the video, li'l blank. Even you should be able to comprehend what he's trying to say.
Of course, you would prefer to divert the conversation from the actual topic: which is that Toomey is complete and utter moron.
This is a scary bill. There has to be a better place to pull money from to pay back China.......Not by skinning the strong Americans that have already put their time in.
Why join the military? Why work? Why be a US citizen?
Ultimately, I think this bill will be a huge blow to patriotism as a whole.
I know that if this nonsense was going on 25 years ago, I wouldn't have joined the military......
Senator Pat Toomey (R-CHINA)
Fixed that for ya.
Federal Judge Roger Vinson in Florida has ruled ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Pay no attention to the fourteen federal judges that ruled HCR is CONSTITUTIONAL!!!
"fourteen federal judges"
And in what court was that pray tell?
If my memory is correct, this has been before only 4 judges. 2 ruled it was and 2 ruled it was not.
Where the hell do you get that lie of 14?
Bet all those senior citizens in my neighborhood that came out and pulled the big red R lever are happy now that their electee is whacking their Social Security.
Read 'em and weep.
Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10
There are others and if you post another stoopid comment I will tell you about the "Great And Powerful Google".
I'll bite. Lets start at the beginning.
Sollars v. Reid. Not a suit regarding the constitutionality of the mandate, which was what this suit and another was about.
Taitz v. Obama had nothing at all to do with constitutionality, it ended up a standing case.
And I will not waste another 2 minutes proving you wrong about 14 judges saying this law is unconstitutional.
But just for fun, I'll pick another of your cites, Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius.
This is too easy.
"Plaintiff Coalition for Parity, Inc. has filed this action against the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, along with their respective Departments (collectively, "Defendants"), seeking to enjoin implementation of regulations promulgated to enforce the provisions of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008"
Had nothing to do with ObamaCare constitutionality at all!
Go back to bed.
Sollars v. Reid is civil litigation which challenges the validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The case, #INND 1:2009-cv-00361, was filed by a pro se Plaintiff in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on 23-Dec-2009 and was assigned to Judge Theresa L. Springmann. The case was closed on 02-Apr-2010.
Wingnut reading comprehension FAIL.
So the "big" story is that a district court judge has ruled that health care reform's individual mandate is unconstitutional, dealing reform a Massively Major Blow. That must mean the "little" story is that in fourteen previous cases, judges have either dismissed cases against the law's constitutionality or ruled against those cases. Here is a roster of some of the rejected cases:
Sollars v. Reid -dismissed 4/2/10
Taitz v. Obama - dismissed 4/14/10
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius - dismissed 6/2/10
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10
U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB - dismissed 8/2/10
Baldwin v. Sebelius – dismissed 8/27/10
Burlsworth v. Holder - dismissed 9/8/10
Schreeve v. Obama - dismissed 11/4/10
And if those cases represent the little story, then the puny story must be that in two previous cases a federal judge has ruled that the individual mandate is perfectly constitutional.
"The judge's ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginia had ruled against it."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul
I'll bite. Lets start at the beginning.
Sollars v. Reid. Not a suit regarding the constitutionality of the mandate, which was what this suit and another was about.
Taitz v. Obama had nothing at all to do with constitutionality, it ended up a standing case.
And I will not waste another 2 minutes proving you wrong about 14 judges saying this law is unconstitutional.
But just for fun, I'll pick another of your cites, Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius.
This is too easy.
"Plaintiff Coalition for Parity, Inc. has filed this action against the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, along with their respective Departments (collectively, "Defendants"), seeking to enjoin implementation of regulations promulgated to enforce the provisions of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008"
Had nothing to do with ObamaCare constitutionality at all!
Go back to bed.
Continue reading on Examiner.com: Republican Senator to introduce a ‘pay China first’ bill on the debt ceiling - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/republican-senator-in...
Plain and simple quit paying for all the ILLEGAL BORDER JUMPERS quit building schools for them and feeding them let MEXICO do that they are their citizens.Why does America take on this burden of them keep on having kids this is why we are broke.
Use them FEMA CAMPS for the ILLEGALS gather them up cut them off drop them off in MEXICO and seal the BORDER
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!