Dems are discussing whether WH can ignore the debt ceiling

[Sheldon]

We have enough funds coming in every month to pay the debt, so all this talk about defaulting is pure BS. The question really is about everything else, like social security, medicare/medicaid, paying the troops, federal prison guards and so on. Does the executive branch have the authority to ignore the debt ceiling and continue to borrow money to cover it's other obligations? If so, then why bother to have a Congress if the president can run up however much debt he wants to. Looks like we're close to that point already, isn't the EPA trying to implement a carbon tax without legislation?

I am reminded of how the Roman empire gradually changed from a republic to a dictatorship. The details are different but IMHO this president is usurping way too much power from the other branches of gov't. Not saying we'll end up with emperors, but I don't like the way things are going.

I think it took over a century for Rome to go from a Republic (as corrupt as it was) to an Empire. But ironically as an Empire it experienced tons of economic and wealth gain through increased arable land that they conquered/stole. The moral of the story is that if a power gets too powerful it eventually collapses. An umbrella can protect you against only so much rain before if buckles under the weight of water.

 

[Liability]

Would a Presidential effort to ignore the debt limit be like a "signing statement?"

 

[Liability]

I look forward to legal scholar Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, lecturing us on the presumed authority and power of the Chief Executive to do whateverthefuck he feels like because he is the President.

 

[Greenbeard]

If so, then why bother to have a Congress if the president can run up however much debt he wants to.

Congress passed the budget for the rest of the current fiscal year in March. Its spending exceeds revenues, which is why the debt continues to climb toward the ceiling. They have to yet to raise the ceiling to accommodate the budget they've passed.

Now, if you're asking what the implications of incoherent and contradictory policy directives coming out of Congress are, I'll agree they certainly involve expansions of executive power. But one might be forgiven for suspecting that Congress enjoys ceding power--well, responsibility--to the executive branch.

 

[Sheldon]

I look forward to legal scholar Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, lecturing us on the presumed authority and power of the Chief Executive to do whateverthefuck he feels like because he is the President.

It's not illegal if the President does it.

 

[Missourian]

My position on this all along has been, there WILL need to be spending cuts, hurtful in many cases, to social programs, along with increased revenue--either through capital gains or corporate or personal income or whatever--to get the government's finances on the right track. Iow, BOTH sides will have to make some concessions on their ideals. But none of the pols want to say this outright because it will hurt their approval numbers.

I disagree.

I think Republicans understand that taxes will need to be raised to control the deficit and pay down the national debt.

All we are asking for is that the cuts come first.

If we don't get the cuts first, we'll never get them.

It is far easier to patch things up with increased revenue than to fix the core problem of out of control spending.

Give us the cuts and then we'll give you the increase to make up the difference...that's the compromise.

 

[Sheldon]

yes I can see that in that context.......... however, it appears to me that directing funds even if to pay debt. is a direction/management of ......money. The power of Appropriation lies with the House, not the senate not the exec..

He would first have to get his hands on it, IF he directs Geithner to just start paying out, where does it end and why has this not been broached before?

as a hypothetical; if Ford wanted to keep funding Vietnam back in 74, he could just have called up whomever was his sec. treas. and told him to fund the DOD? somehow, I just don't think so.

The treas is supposed to be I think, and I am sure we will hear this, a total non partisan ( in its collection and direction mechanics) responsive to........?

Yeah the Sec of Treasure is SUPPOSED to be non-partisan, but since Paulson I've lost faith. I suspect they are mostly promoted as a puppet for the largest banks on Wall Street, but that's my own personal conspiracy theory.

My position on this all along has been, there WILL need to be spending cuts, hurtful in many cases, to social programs, along with increased revenue--either through capital gains or corporate or personal income or whatever--to get the government's finances on the right track. Iow, BOTH sides will have to make some concessions on their ideals. But none of the pols want to say this outright because it will hurt their approval numbers.

I disagree.

I think Republicans understand that taxes will need to be raised to control the deficiet and pay down the national debt.

All we are asking for is that the cuts come first.

If we don't get the cuts first, we'll never get them.

It is far easier to patch things up with increased revenue than to fix the core problem of out of control spending.

Give us the cuts and then we'll give you the increase to make up the difference...that's the compromise.

Well I think that's reasonable. Too bad you and me aren't running the show.