Constitution Compels Obama To Bypass Congress And Raise Debt Ceiling Unilaterally

[eflatminor]

Poverty was at 19% in 1964, and is at 15% now. I don't really want to get into a "new way" to measure poverty. I'm not suggesting entitlement programs are working well now or arent in need of serious reform, but the stark drop off in poverty after 1964 is a testiment to LBJ and the war on poverty.

Yea, the poverty rate did drop between 1964 and 1969, a time when the economy boomed and more importantly, a time period during which entitlements were TINY TINY TINY compared to today. Would LOVE to go back to that level of entitlement spending! Please!

That doesn't change the fact that since entitlement spending REALLY got going around 1970, the poverty rate is up. Best case you can make, it kept things even. MY GOODNESS! Who would invest TRILLIONS of dollars for a return of 'about even'? That's insane.

Then there's the cycle of dependency that breeds so many unproductive lives. It breaks my heart.

LOL - Poverty is up?-----up from what?
Up from down, as AmyNation's chart shows. After LBJ declared war on poverty, the poverty rate dropped-----dropped and has never returned to the levels of pre-war on poverty levels and-----and, please note, the peaks in poverty are during Republican administrations - the valleys are during Democratic administrations.

​

That chart proves my point. A perfect example of how two people can look at the same data and draw completely opposite conclusions.

The trend was heading DOWN long before the start of the 'great society' in 1964. The entitlements didn't cause the trend to continue down, it was already heading that way. Poverty was heading down because we were transitioning post WII into a modern economy, with its greatly increased division of labor. This is especially true following JKF's tax rate cuts. The economy not only boomed, it transformed. We all got rich by the world standard. It's right there in your own chart!

Worse, when you REALLY started spending on entitlements in 1970, the downward trend stopped. 1969 to now, poverty is UP. Despite the exponential increase in entitlement spending!

You cannot escape the logic. We've FAILED to redistribute our way out of poverty.

I argue we'd have less poverty without the federal meddling. That downward trend before LBJ's progressive dream kicked in would mostly likely have continued heading in that direction. The central planning made it worse.

In order to recreate those halcyon days that you're referencing, we would also have to go back to the same tax rates that contributed to those days, right?

Tell ya what. Let's handle it like you guys always handle tax rate hikes. Instead of higher rates now in return for a promise of a spending "cut" later, you return to 1960s level of entitlement spending now and I promise we'll increase tax rates later. Deal?

Facetiousness aside, the tax rates are a completely different issue to the point at hand. Remember, we're talking about entitlement spending and whether it had a positive effect on poverty. The point remains that entitlement spending in the 60s was NOTHING compared to today. As soon as we started spending heavily, the downward trend stopped...and even got worse. What an expensive lesson!​

 

[OKTexas]

Let him try. It will go to Court and he will lose. Only Congress can authorize spending. Not the President. Since we haven't had a budget in 4 years he can not even use that to claim he has authority.

If Congress did not raise the debt limit, and emergency procedures to raise cash does not provide sufficient funds to meet government obligations, I have no doubt the president would act unilaterally. The one thing the US government can not do is fail to make good on it's contracts and debt obligations that are due. If that would happen the market value of treasury bills would fall like a rock as would the value of thousands of pensions funds, financial institutions, stocks, and bonds. Remember, there is only one thing that keeps the boat afloat. People have faith in the US government to meet it's obligations. If that faith is destroyed, then everything comes down like a house of cards.

Congress would have to be totally insane to allow this to happen.

It only take about 48 billion a month to service the debt, there are sufficient tax revenues to accomplish that and the 14th Amendment requires the treasury to pay those debts first. Not extending borrowing authority would require the government to cut spending by 40%, but it would not spell total disaster and cuts of that magnitude are not unprecedented. Personally I favor smaller incremental increases that would require a 10-12% in cuts.

 

[Flopper]

If Congress did not raise the debt limit, and emergency procedures to raise cash does not provide sufficient funds to meet government obligations, I have no doubt the president would act unilaterally. The one thing the US government can not do is fail to make good on it's contracts and debt obligations that are due. If that would happen the market value of treasury bills would fall like a rock as would the value of thousands of pensions funds, financial institutions, stocks, and bonds. Remember, there is only one thing that keeps the boat afloat. People have faith in the US government to meet it's obligations. If that faith is destroyed, then everything comes down like a house of cards.

Congress would have to be totally insane to allow this to happen.

And that would be members of the TPM, who are willing to destroy the Nation to blindly adhere to their reckless fiscal agenda.

You of course, mean the reckless and irresponsible raising of the debt ceiling in the past which has brought this nation to the very brink of financial ruin.

The continuation of raising the debt ceiling is a bigger threat to this nation and its financial well being than any argument made for raising it.

Holding the line is what is termed as 'Fiscal Sanity'.

To hold the line and not raise the debt ceiling would mean eliminating a trillion dollar deficit in one year which would bring on a recession possibility far worst than anything we have ever seen. However, it could be far worse. There is a very good possibility that the conflicting laws, federal regulations, and the slowness of the government to react would result in a default, the very thing fiscal conservatives are trying to prevent.

 

[AmyNation]

LMAO Term limits..THAT'S IT??? That's all you have. Don't you look pathetic now.

Um, no. Not term limits. Focus.

"Like the "fact" that you would have supported the murderer of 20 children being able to vote and run for public office? Save your Pollyanna advice liberal."

Remember this? You are the one advocating for limiting who can run as a representive, instead of trusting the people to choose.

Well except felons can't run for office. AT least not high office. Is it not telling you do not mind if a mass murderer is elected to high office?

The original discussion began about a convicted felon, who was the driver in a drive by shooting which killed 2 children, running for city counsel. And who said I didn't mind? I said I didn't think creating a new law to prevent people from elected him was the answer.

 

[Sallow]

Dem Sen. Tom Udall: Constitution Compels Obama To Bypass Congress And Raise Debt Ceiling Unilaterally…​

Whose constitution? — North Korea’s?


continue reading -->
Democrats to Obama: Keep Constitution on the table in debt ceiling fight - Rachael Bade and Patrick Reis - POLITICO.com

No this one.

Read the 14th Amendment.

It's the "Debt Ceiling" that's un-constitutional.

It would be more in keeping with a North Korean world vision to keep spending endlessly on the military and starving your citizens.

Cause THAT'S what THEY do.

 

[Erand7899]

I think it would be detrimental to Obama to attempt to use the 14th to bypass congress. It will of course end up in the SC, and could very well lead to his impeachment, depending on their interpretation.

The debt discussed in the 14th is Civil War debt. It is not a discussion of debt in general and does not modify Article I Section 8.

Shall I quote the 14th for you too?

I can tell you see this purely in a black and white sense.

Can Obama Extend the Debt Ceiling on His Own? by Ronald Dworkin | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

"The “debt shall not be questioned” clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment for a specific and immediate purpose: to prevent the new Southern members of Congress, should they gain a majority, from cancelling the debt the Union had incurred in the war. But constitutional interpretation is not a catalogue of historical anecdotes; it is a matter of principle and we are therefore required to identify the principle on which the authors of the clause had to rely. As Chief Justice Hughes said of the clause in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, “While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle … ”

The general contours of that fundamental principle seem clear enough. Congress does not have authority, even by a substantial majority, to dishonor the nation by repudiating outstanding debts it has authorized the nation to incur. The fiscal integrity of the United States is sacred and requires constitutional protection.

However, it's grey enough that constitutional scholars, which I am not, are debating it. The only way the question could truly be answered would be for Obama to try it, and for it to go to the SC.

The inability to pay a debt does not repudiate that debt, or even question the validity of that debt. If the congress does not raise the debt ceiling, it prevents the administration from borrowing more money to pay for the borrowing that we have already done.

That means that we would be unable to pay all debts, but it would not question the validity of any of them.

Any attempt by the administration to ignore the debt ceiling would be a serious attempt at a power grab by the administration. But, I would not put it past this group of clowns that we now have in the executive branch.