|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Staring at the debt ceiling
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that most of recent upward motion of the U.S. deficit/debt as a percentage of GDP hasn't been due to a sudden binge of runaway spending but due to the stagnation of the U.S. economy. (i.e. the U.S. GDP has shrunk or held steady but not grown significantly since 2008.) Given this, the obvious step is not for the government to cut spending but rather to encourage growth.
Yes, that's exactly what the managing partners of PIMCO have been recommending. Not that they would know anything, of course...all they do is run the world's largest bond trading firm.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
...It was my understanding that Tea Persons were in favour only of program cuts and refused to countenance tax increases. I thought that if they are as immune to reason and logic as presented, they might be fooled as long as you don't say the bad word "tax."
They can't support tax increases without violating the solemn pledge sworn to Grover Norquist and the group, Americans for Tax Reform (as have most Republicans).
"Take the pledge, win the primary. Take the pledge, win the general. Break the pledge, lose," Norquist says.
We have no one to blame but the bone-headed American public who voted these intransigent corporate lackeys into office last fall. Hopefully, enough voters will wake up to their gross mistake and remove them in 2012 - but I'm not counting on it. It's as though the public is mesmerized by a lemming-like suicidal fascination.
So I suggest that on August 2, the federal government immediately cease spending money in the districts of all the members of Congress who have signed Norquist's idiotic pledge.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
So I suggest that on August 2, the federal government immediately cease spending money in the districts of all the members of Congress who have signed Norquist's idiotic pledge.
Well, that comes to the tricky part. Does the President, or those acting on his behalf in the Treasury Department, have the authority to selectively not perform spending that's been authorized by the Congress? The Treasury has been both ordered by Congress to spend and forbidden by Congress to spend.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
Erwin Chemerinsky, LA Times opinion.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Buy any bonds lately? The Fed sure has.
For anyone who doesn't understand how an entity can (1) incur debt while (2) having enough spare cash to buy that debt back-- this feat is otherwise known as printing paper money. Which explains why the federal government is the only entity that can accomplish the feat.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about debt, he must disobey it's instructions about payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about payments (a.k.a. spending), he must disobey its instructions regarding the debt ceiling.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
I don't often quote Mitch McConnell, but this is rather good.
quote:
“And what about here in the Senate? Well the contrast couldn’t be starker. Rather than working these last few days towards a solution to this crisis the way the Republican Majority in the House has, the Democratic Majority here in the Senate has been wasting precious time rounding up `no’ votes to keep this crisis alive. Rather than being responsible and doing their duty and come up with a bill that can pass, they’ve been busy signing people up for the `not good enough’ caucus and ginning up opposition to everything else.
and
quote:
Democrats are out bragging about how they’re going to prolong this crisis instead of doing the hard work of trying to solve it.
“And that includes the President.
“Look: If the President hadn’t decided to blow up the bipartisan solution that members of Congress worked so hard to produce last weekend, we’d be voting to end this crisis today.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Now the house is back to naming Post Offices. you can watch the fun here ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't often quote Mitch McConnell, but this is rather good.
quote:
“And what about here in the Senate? Well the contrast couldn’t be starker. Rather than working these last few days towards a solution to this crisis the way the Republican Majority in the House has, the Democratic Majority here in the Senate has been wasting precious time rounding up `no’ votes to keep this crisis alive. Rather than being responsible and doing their duty and come up with a bill that can pass, they’ve been busy signing people up for the `not good enough’ caucus and ginning up opposition to everything else.
and
quote:
Democrats are out bragging about how they’re going to prolong this crisis instead of doing the hard work of trying to solve it.
“And that includes the President.
“Look: If the President hadn’t decided to blow up the bipartisan solution that members of Congress worked so hard to produce last weekend, we’d be voting to end this crisis today.
There is a stench on both sides, but there could've been a deal by now if not for the Tea Party faction. Their whole attitude is they either get Cut, Cap and Balance, complete with a constitutional amendment or they aren't going along with raising the debt limit. Period. They refuse to negotiate or compromise - even with their own party. The country is about to go over the cliff financially when for the first time in our entire history we won't be able to pay bills that are already obligated. The Tea Party doesn't care or is blindingly ignorant as to what the debt limit actually is. There is a stench on both sides, but the Tea Party is rotten.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Finally, at long, long last, the President's debt ceiling crisis Plan.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
What amazes me is the fact that the ratings agencies S&P, Fitch and Moodys haven't already downgraded the US, on the strength that this silly dispute is still going on. It makes you wonder if Dagong's theory that they suffer from ideological bias might actually be right.
Who is buying US government bonds right now, anyway? Not many, it seems. Investor confidence in the US has already been hit, even if the ratings agencies won't admit it.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Finally, at long, long last, the President's debt ceiling crisis Plan.
Your link locked up my browser. The President has been engaged in Congressional negotiations and laid out what he would like to see. As to actual legislation or a "plan" that is Congress' responsibility, which they've made a royal f&ck up of. As I said, the stench is on both sides, but the Tea Party are the spoiled kids on the block.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
When did compromise become a dirty word? We've always had the pols trot out the rhetoric then go back and work out a deal. Now compromise is seen as weak or even evil. I'd just wish they'd do their jobs and work out a deal and avert the train wreck that's right in front of us.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It's become increasingly clear that the Tea Party is not really part of the Republican Party. They aren't following the Republican congressional leadership. Speaker Boehner probably wants to throttle some of them for torpedoing his plan to have a debt ceiling vote today.
The Tea Party won't even engage with the rest of the Republican Party. The best thing for the Republicans would be to eject the Tea Partiers and let them set up their own official party. Because that's the way their Congress members on the hill are behaving, like they are their own party.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Republicans can't win elections without the tea party, so I doubt that's going to happen.
Zach
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Here in Ohio, it looks like one tea party member is going to be repaid for his disloyality to the speaker ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) .
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about debt, he must disobey it's instructions about payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about payments (a.k.a. spending), he must disobey its instructions regarding the debt ceiling.
Then Obama must honor his oath to uphold the constitution and order the Treasury Dept. to pay debts already incurred. Congress is attempting to pass legislation retroactively and ignore the 14th amendment - "The validity of public debts...including debts incurred...shall not be questioned."
Representatives holding a knife to the executive branch, over-riding the checks and balances inherent in our 3-branch system, and forcibly dictating their agenda should all be impeached and found guilty of treason.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Blindfolds and firing squads at noon on the steps of the Capitol Building.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Here in Ohio, it looks like one tea party member is going to be repaid for his disloyality to the speaker .
Oops. Jordy go down the hole.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's not clear is what an actual default would do to inflation and bond rates, but it's probably not good.
I agree. If the government is "buying back" its own instruments of indebtedness, that sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Scratch the surface and a few things are explained. Perhaps the interest rate is slammed down almost to zero in hopes of concealing the fact that money is being printed with nothing behind it, and postponing the consequences. The ruse will have to be abandoned soon. Hence, too, proposals to "recalibrate" the cost-of-living index on the premise that the current rate of inflation, low though it is said to be, is overstated. Yeah sure. I've just been informed that my long-term- care insurance premium, already by far the largest check I write all year, is to go up 23%. The cost of gasoline is up. The cost of food is up. The cost of college tuition has gone up "faster than inflation" for quite awhile. The cost of cable-TV and telephone service... so many exceptions. One has to wonder what is left on which a low rate can be calculated.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about debt, he must disobey it's instructions about payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about payments (a.k.a. spending), he must disobey its instructions regarding the debt ceiling.
My boss had a thought about how this needle could be threaded -- what if the Treasury stopped borrowing, continued to send out the checks, and just printed enough money to cover them (or whatever is the modern equivalent of that). Bad economics, certainly. Inflationary as all get-out. But wouldn't that resolve the apparent contradiction?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
My boss had a thought about how this needle could be threaded -- what if the Treasury stopped borrowing, continued to send out the checks, and just printed enough money to cover them (or whatever is the modern equivalent of that). Bad economics, certainly. Inflationary as all get-out. But wouldn't that resolve the apparent contradiction?
--Tom Clune
This brings us to what's been called "the platinum coin option". The amount of paper currency in circulation is controlled by statute (i.e. Congress already passed a law) but there seems to be an insane-sounding throw-away provision in the U.S. Code that allows a lot of discretion to the Treasury Secretary in one very specific way. Blogger Matthew Yglesias explains:
quote:
I keep hesitating to write about this because it sounds insane, but Jack Balkin’s a professor at Yale Law School so I’ll let him say it:
quote:
Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time. Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.
It’s right here in 31 USC § 5112 “Denominations, specifications, and design of coins.” It’s super-prescriptive about all kinds of things until you get to section (k):
quote:
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
In short, there are legal restrictions on how much paper currency can be circulated by the U.S. at one time, but there's this obscure, open-ended subsection of the U.S. Code, probably inserted years ago by a Congressman with platinum extraction interests in his district, that authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue as much platinum currency as he wants, in whatever denominations he wishes. Brad DeLong suggested minting fifty coins valued at $100 billion each.
Every time I think the whole debt ceiling crisis is the apex of government insanity in action, I come across a solution that sounds even crazier.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Tea Party won't even engage with the rest of the Republican Party. The best thing for the Republicans would be to eject the Tea Partiers and let them set up their own official party. Because that's the way their Congress members on the hill are behaving, like they are their own party.
What? That is just wrong.The Republicans passed a bill, Cut, Cap and Balance, which the Senate would not even consider.
Then Boehner drafted another bill, but it compromised too much. So did the Tea Partiers just walk away? No. They kept bargaining with Boehner and crafted a bill that just passed. Again the Senate has said it will not even consider it.
Sounds like engagement to me. Just because they did not roll over and give in does not mean they walked away. Far from it.
The ones who are not engaging are the Democrats. They call for compromise and bipartisanship and follow through on neither. The House sent them two bills that they will not even debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
[QB] Then Obama must honor his oath to uphold the constitution and order the Treasury Dept. to pay debts already incurred. Congress is attempting to pass legislation retroactively and ignore the 14th amendment - "The validity of public debts...including debts incurred...shall not be questioned."
What? That makes no sense.
Retroactive legislation?
Ignoring the 14th Amendment?
Where do you get those from? It's bonkers.
The only one who can avoid the public debt is Obama and he has promised that there will be no default.
Remember, this debate is about the debt ceiling not the debt. That is the problem, of course. If the debt ceiling is not raised, there is still enough money coming in to service the debt. Other payments would have to be delayed. The Treasury Department surely has a contingency plan for that. (Don't worry. They'll close parks and such. Our precious elected officials' salaries will be okay.)
And you conveniently left out a phrase from the fifth section of the 14th Amendment:
quote:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Authorized by law. That's why a President cannot incur debt on his own. Congress has to okay it.
[ 29. July 2011, 23:45: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
I'm sorry, NY. Your statements are so convoluted and confused I don't know where to begin a response. You win.
(maybe someone else can sort it out)
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Tea Party won't even engage with the rest of the Republican Party. The best thing for the Republicans would be to eject the Tea Partiers and let them set up their own official party. Because that's the way their Congress members on the hill are behaving, like they are their own party.
What? That is just wrong.The Republicans passed a bill, Cut, Cap and Balance, which the Senate would not even consider.
Then Boehner drafted another bill, but it compromised too much. So did the Tea Partiers just walk away? No. They kept bargaining with Boehner and crafted a bill that just passed. Again the Senate has said it will not even consider it.
Sounds like engagement to me. Just because they did not roll over and give in does not mean they walked away. Far from it.
The ones who are not engaging are the Democrats. They call for compromise and bipartisanship and follow through on neither. The House sent them two bills that they will not even debate.
Where was the compromise in those bills? There was none. There were no revenue increases. That's not compromise, that's "my way or the highway."
But the real issue is that this should never have been taken hostage in the first place. The place to debate the budget is when the budget comes up for renewal, not when the responsibility to make good on moneys already spent. The GOP seized on this to force through its own will on slashing social programs without raising taxes on the filthy rich, or even restoring them to previous levels, or reducing tax loopholes. Nothing. There is nothing of "compromise" in their bills.
This is the Republican party holding a gun to the head of the US economy and saying, "Give us everything we want, or the economy gets it." Gee, why would the Democrats find that objectionable? I can't imagine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
I'm sorry, NY. Your statements are so convoluted and confused I don't know where to begin a response. You win.
(maybe someone else can sort it out)
It's fairly simple. NYer doesn't see the contradiction in his theory. I've highlighted it here.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Remember, this debate is about the debt ceiling not the debt. That is the problem, of course. If the debt ceiling is not raised, there is still enough money coming in to service the debt. Other payments would have to be delayed. The Treasury Department surely has a contingency plan for that.
He's working from the assumption that the President does not have the power to ignore the law. Fair enough, the Constitution says as much. The President thus cannot ignore the law limiting the total U.S. debt (a.k.a. the debt ceiling). For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
If anything, the basic principle is that if a previous law (like the debt ceiling) is incompatible with a subsequent law (like the resolutions authorizing spending and taxation for the current fiscal year), the previous law is considered to be overturned, even if not explicitly stated in the more recent law.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Or requiring approval constitutional balanced budget amendment. That was nuts. Didn't you learn your lesson with the 18th Amendment?
Second, delaying payment of authorized obligations of the US Government is default. It means the full faith and credit of the United States can no longer be accepted at face value. How exactly is reneging on obligation the US Government has already incurred in any way ethical?
This, why on earth isn't the budget debate the appropriate venue for the Tea Party's criticisms?
Lastly, Tea Partiers don't seem to get that they don't live on an island. We all have obligations to one another, we aren't islands of isolation that can do anything we want. Actions have consequences and there is a process in which to make their views known constructively. This debt ceiling debate isn't it.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The place to debate the budget is when the budget comes up for renewal, not when the responsibility to make good on moneys already spent.
But the Senate has not put forth a budget in, what, 800+ days? The President put forth a budget and it was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Even the Democrats did not vote for the President's budget
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
You're right. There is no line item veto. But the 14th Amendment says that the public debt must not be questioned. So, the President must see that the debt is paid. Not all expenditure is debt. Alas, that means that elected officials' salaries are not debt, so they'll have to be left behind until the debt is paid. It's not a line item veto in disguise, it's doing what is necessary to comply with the 14th Amendment.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The place to debate the budget is when the budget comes up for renewal, not when the responsibility to make good on moneys already spent.
But the Senate has not put forth a budget in, what, 800+ days? The President put forth a budget and it was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Even the Democrats did not vote for the President's budget
But Congress did pass a continuing resolution authorizing spending. That has the force of law.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
You're right. There is no line item veto. But the 14th Amendment says that the public debt must not be questioned. So, the President must see that the debt is paid. Not all expenditure is debt. Alas, that means that elected officials' salaries are not debt, so they'll have to be left behind until the debt is paid.
Who's talking about debt? Your argument is that the president is bound to follow the law in the case of the debt ceiling but for some unspecified reason isn't obligated to follow the law in the case of Congressionally mandated expenditures. Remember, honoring the U.S. debt may be mandated by the Constitution but the debt ceiling is statutory.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
It's not a line item veto in disguise, it's doing what is necessary to comply with the 14th Amendment.
No, of course not. It's just the President picking which line items won't get funding. Any resemblance between that and a line-item veto, which allows a President to pick which line items won't get funding, is purely coincidental! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It is so pathetic to see the Democrats begging the Republicans to please let them surrender with some dignity....
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It is so pathetic to see the Democrats begging the Republicans to please let them surrender with some dignity....
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry for the double post but John Boehner has written a wonderful column.
From the introduction to Boehner's wonderful column: quote:
Americans are worried about jobs. They’re worried about our economy. And they’re worried about our debt. The debt-limit crisis, thrust upon our citizens this summer, has intensified these anxieties.
(my italics)
Thanks, Boehner, for thrusting this debt-limit crisis upon us - your concern has been noted.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If Americans are worried about jobs, how is it the GOP has not produced one single bill that does anything about jobs? And have axed thousands of jobs through their actions and inactions, for which Boehner himself said, "So be it."
Take your "jobs" and shove it up your ass, Bonehead.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I read Boehner's article. He doesn't even mention the human cost of his plan.
And *he* writes about arrogance.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I read Boehner's article. He doesn't even mention the human cost of his plan.
And *he* writes about arrogance.
Mere collateral damage.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I wonder how much of this has to do with "inside the beltway syndrome"?
The beltway is a road that runs around DC. Politicians working inside it are known to lose perspective on what goes on outside. They talk to each other, and assume that's the sum of reality.
I wonder if it would help for people who will be directly, immediately affected by not getting their checks to non-violently confront politicians and their staffers. "Hi. I'm not going to be able to eat, or pay rent, or get my medications if you don't send out those checks." That might help put a human face on the problem.
And maybe friends, caregivers, etc. could take a page from the Mothers of the Disappeared, and hold up pictures of people who will suffer.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I'm looking at the Tea Party's home page.
From their mission statement, they sound like Libertarians. (Or the militia groups. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ) So why didn't they just join that group? I'm guessing it's because they wouldn't have had much political power.
I tried to look at their forums. Only members can read them.
They even have a coloring book! (See that tab.) I note they included children of color on the cover. Are there non-white Tea Party members??
I think they're basically giving a focus to the populist strain in American politics. Unfortunately, it's a very bad one.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
The biggest problem to me is that nobody is willing to fight the teabaggers on their own terms, they are all trying to continue negotiating with terrorists in good faith. Surely the USA PATRIOT Act would have to be useful for something?
[ 30. July 2011, 07:27: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Any ideas as to how to do that?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Create a different colouring book?
Those favourable reviews are scary.
From this side of the pond, the Tea Party looks like the natural inheritor of all the McCarthyite nastiness we hoped Ed Murrow had helped kill for ever. But I suppose isolationist thinking is a hard weed to kill.
[ 30. July 2011, 09:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous? The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke. Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future. It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous? The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke. Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future. It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
If the Tea Partiers are concerned about the future of America why don't they give a flying fuck about climate change? Then again, those who worry about climate seem not to worry so much about the budget.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Their "Featured Reading" list contains one book.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
So George Bush is a Democrat now?
Does anyone actually believe this stuff?
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
Read literally it allows him to continue to borrow money for Social Security and veterans benefits. Or rather it bans other parts of the government - including Congress - from saying he can't. Because that would be questioning the credit of the United States.
I'm sure a clever lawyer could stretch that to include medicare and military wages.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tea Partiers are concerned about the future of America why don't they give a flying fuck about climate change? Then again, those who worry about climate seem not to worry so much about the budget.
Oh, dear. You still buy into all that mumbo jumbo? Bless your little heart.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
But Obama has already stated publicly that he doesn't believe he has this Constitutional authority, and that he is acting on that advice from his own lawyers.
(@ ken; X-post w NY)
[ 30. July 2011, 13:43: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
That not surrendering did real well for them with the Gingrich vs. Clinton government shutdown. The stakes are much higher now and it appears the GOP is going beyond the shutdown of government, they don't care if they cause the U.S. to default on it's debts for the first time in it's history.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous? The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
George W. Bush with the assistance of 6 years of GOP Congressional majority did that. They spent like drunken sailors and got us into 2 never ending wars. And it was George W. Bush signed the first stimulus package, not Obama. And let's not forget Dick Cheney's "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter". I was a Republican until I saw what Reagan's deficit spending while cutting entitlements was doing. I'm not happy with the Dems either so I'm registered Independent and wish we could trash the 2 party system as it's broken.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke. Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future. It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
The problem Tea Party is ignoring money that is already owed. That is why the debt ceiling must be lifted. I really can't understand why they don't see that. As for "selective bill payment", that will ruin anyone's credit rating. This country has had a AAA rating in all it's history. The TP want's to throw it away. That is treason.
There will be damaging cuts to entitlements, but there also needs to be tax increases on the wealthier if we are ever to see daylight on this mess. The pain must be across the board or it will be too little. As for jobs, Corporations have been sitting on mega profits for the last couple of years along with mega tax breaks and instead of investing in this country with jobs, they've continued with either the same workforce or forced more layoffs. They value mega profits over their country at this point unless they start hiring.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Bad news for the tea party. Conservatives are beginning to openly attack their actions.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
