Debt Ceiling Threats Not a Winning Formula

[beretta304]

I didn't ask you if we could 'survive' not increasing the debt ceiling for any length of time.

I was asking you if you were a fraud and liar by claiming - repeatedly - that not raising the debt ceiling is a default on our debt obligations.

Thanks for answering!


LOL

Not raising the debt ceiling is a default on our bills. It means there will not be enough money to pay for what congress has already spent. You know this, by you're being purposefully obtuse, as per usual from you.

You're right on the money. I think justify this type of fiscal irresponsibilty requires some self deception. No one who really understands it, can honestly justify it.

No one with a brain and intelligence would vote for the Bummer, yet look what we have masquerading as a Leader.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, we the people and Republicans should just bend over to the thug Obama and his comrades in arms along with their Lapdog lamestream media..

WE will be blamed anyway

people better start understanding the LAMEsteam media has become a enemy to a lot of us in this country

You are NOT the majority.

the minority doesnt get its way in a democracy

I hate to say it TM, but I think this is the root of the problem.
When Republicans are in control of the checkbook, they spend like drunken sailors on leave. Not a penny saved compaired to Democratic spending. But when DEMOCRATS pass the legislation to spend the money, Republicans think they can just refuse to pay the bill. And make no mistake - it's NOT because they are against overspending or racking up debt. They've demonstrated that clearly. It's simply because THERY aren't the ones designating who gets the windfall.

It's a minority's way of trying to impose it's will on the majority by threat. Like an Al Qiada suicide bomber.

 

[beretta304]

No, we the people and Republicans should just bend over to the thug Obama and his comrades in arms along with their Lapdog lamestream media..

WE will be blamed anyway

people better start understanding the LAMEsteam media has become a enemy to a lot of us in this country

You are NOT the majority.

the minority doesnt get its way in a democracy

I hate to say it TM, but I think this is the root of the problem.
When Republicans are in control of the checkbook, they spend like drunken sailors on leave. Not a penny saved compaired to Democratic spending. But when DEMOCRATS pass the legislation to spend the money, Republicans think they can just refuse to pay the bill. And make no mistake - it's NOT because they are against overspending or racking up debt. They've demonstrated that clearly. It's simply because THERY aren't the ones designating who gets the windfall.

It's a minority's way of trying to impose it's will on the majority by threat. Like an Al Qiada suicide bomber.

Oh that's a good one. Keep talking to TM. Let me know when you need to borrow my gun.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The deal that was just brokered to avoid the fiscal cliff consists of $1 in spending cuts for every $41 dollars in tax increases. In other words...we STILL haven't gotten our spending under control. You can't keep on raising the debt ceiling, Kiddies...despite what progressives here "think". At some point Obama's going to have to step up to the plate and make some cuts or we're going to get our credit rating downgraded again.

I agree and I disagree.

I agree 100% that we have got to step up to the plate and make some significant and meaningful spending cuts. And I agree 100% that the fiscal cliff deal didn't do it.

I disagree in that defaulting on spending that congress has already authorized (with all the negative ramifications that come from it) is NOT the place to address that.

I also think you're badly mistaken if you think Democrats are the only ones who have spent us into this situation. Dragging this issue down into hyper-partisan bickering only hurts. It turns the issue away from spending and into who-can-blame-the-other-guy-better. Everyone loses.

 

[beretta304]

The deal that was just brokered to avoid the fiscal cliff consists of $1 in spending cuts for every $41 dollars in tax increases. In other words...we STILL haven't gotten our spending under control. You can't keep on raising the debt ceiling, Kiddies...despite what progressives here "think". At some point Obama's going to have to step up to the plate and make some cuts or we're going to get our credit rating downgraded again.

I agree and I disagree.

I agree 100% that we have got to step up to the plate and make some significant and meaningful spending cuts. And I agree 100% that the fiscal cliff deal didn't do it.

I disagree in that defaulting on spending that congress has already authorized (with all the negative ramifications that come from it) is NOT the place to address that.

I also think you're badly mistaken if you think Democrats are the only ones who have spent us into this situation. Dragging this issue down into hyper-partisan bickering only hurts. It turns the issue away from spending and into who-can-blame-the-other-guy-better. Everyone loses.

And once again, where were you when oBUMa was employing that strategy? His first 4 years were based on it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Democrats just got the taxes they demanded. They forced the GOP's hand by painting "them" as the culprits if we went over the fiscal cliff. So we kicked spending cuts further down the road "once again". Once again we will have to deal with that in a debt ceiling debate and once again liberals will try and paint conservatives as "mean and heartless" simply for asking for fiscal sanity.

We don't have a choice here, folks! We HAVE to cut spending and we have to start now.

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Possible methods of bypassing the debt ceiling

[edit] Fourteenth Amendment

During the debate, some scholars, Democratic lawmakers,[76][77][78] and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] suggested that the President could declare that the debt ceiling violates the Constitution and issue an Executive Order to direct the Treasury to issue more debt.[79] They point to Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, that states that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. Others rebutted this argument by pointing to Section 8 of Article 1 and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which state that Congress has the power of the purse and the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.[90]
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power . . .To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Amendment XIV, Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Amendment XIV, Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Arguments Jack Balkin, looking into the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment, argued that Section 4 was adopted to guard against politically-determined default. Referencing the sponsor of the provision, Senator Benjamin Wade, Balkin argued that "the central rationale for Section Four ... was to remove threats of default on federal debts from partisan struggle." Balkin quotes Wade: "every man who has property in the public funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the varying majorities which may arise in Congress." According to Balkin, this reveals "an important structural principle. The threat of defaulting on government obligations is a powerful weapon, especially in a complex, interconnected world economy. Devoted partisans can use it to disrupt government, to roil ordinary politics, to undermine policies they do not like, even to seek political revenge. Section Four was placed in the Constitution to remove this weapon from ordinary politics."[91]
Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and columnist for The Fiscal Times, argued that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and that the President should disregard the debt limit.[92]
The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel argued that the President could use the public debt section of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the Treasury to continue paying its debts if an agreement to raise the debt ceiling was not reached.[93]
Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, called the argument that the public debt clause can nullify the debt ceiling "false hope" and noted that nothing in the Constitution enabled the President to "usurp legislative power" with regards to the debt. Tribe said that since Congress has means other than borrowing to pay the federal debt (including raising taxes, coining money, and selling federal assets), the argument that the President could seize the power to borrow could be extended to give the President the ability to seize those powers as well.[94]
Garrett Epps counter-argued that the President would not be usurping Congressional power by invoking Section 4 to declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional, because the debt ceiling exceeds Congressional authority. He called it legislative "double-counting," as paraphrased in The New Republic, "because Congress already appropriated the funds in question, it is the executive branch's duty to enact those appropriations."[95] In other words, given Congress has appropriated money via federal programs, the Executive is obligated to enact and, therefore, fund them, but the debt ceiling's limit on debt prevents the executive from carrying out the instructions given by Congress, on the constitutional authority to set appropriations; essentially, to obey the statutory debt ceiling would require usurping congress' constitutional powers, and hence the statute must be unconstitutional.
Former President Bill Clinton endorsed this counter-argument, saying he would eliminate the debt ceiling using the 14th Amendment. He called it "crazy" that Congress first appropriates funds and then gets a second vote on whether to pay.[96]
Matthew Zeitlin added to the counter-argument that, were Section 4 invoked, members of Congress would not have standing to sue the President for allegedly usurping congressional authority, even if they were willing to do so; and those likely to have standing would be people "designed to elicit zero public sympathy: those who purchased credit default swaps which would pay off in the event of government default."[95] Matthew Steinglass argued that, because it would come down to the Supreme Court, the Court would not vote in favor of anyone who could and would sue: it would rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional. This is because, for the Court to rule to uphold the debt ceiling, it would, in effect, be voting for the United States to default, with the consequences that would entail; and, Steinglass argues, the Court would not do that.[97]
Michael Stern, Senior Counsel to the US House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004, stated that Garrett Epps "had adopted an overly broad interpretation of the Public Debt Clause and that this interpretation, even if accepted, could not justify invalidating the debt limit" because "the President's duty to safeguard the national debt no more enables him to assume Congress's power of the purse than it would enable him to assume the judicial power when (in his opinion) the Supreme Court acts in an unconstitutional manner."[98]
Rob Natelson, former Constitutional Law Professor at University of Montana, argued that "this is not some issue in the disputed boundaries between legislative and executive power." He continued, "That's why the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 2) gives only Congress, not the President, the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." In another argument, Natelson stated that Bruce Bartlett "deftly omits a crucial part of the quote from the Fourteenth Amendment. It actually says, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, AUTHORIZED BY LAW ... shall not be questioned.' In other words, Congress has to approve the debt for it not to be questioned. And note that this language refers to existing debt, not to creating new debt. He also neglects to mention that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically grants to Congress, not to the President, authority to enforce the amendment."[90]
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner[89] implied that the debt ceiling may violate the Constitution; however George Madison, General Counsel to the US Treasury, wrote that "Secretary Geithner has never argued that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution allows the President to disregard the statutory debt limit" (but nor did Madison say that Geithner had argued against the proposition either), and that "the Constitution explicitly places the borrowing authority with Congress." He stated that "Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress."[99]


United States debt-ceiling crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an interesting legal question. And I can see the "double dip" theory in action in this present case. But I wouldn't want to see it go to court.

My first choice is for moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to work together to make meaningful spending cuts. Then, this issue of the debt ceiling will take care of itself.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Democrats just got the taxes they demanded. They forced the GOP's hand by painting "them" as the culprits if we went over the fiscal cliff. So we kicked spending cuts further down the road "once again". Once again we will have to deal with that in a debt ceiling debate and once again liberals will try and paint conservatives as "mean and heartless" simply for asking for fiscal sanity.

We don't have a choice here, folks! We HAVE to cut spending and we have to start now.

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

So what would you suggest as an alternative to threats to not increase the debt ceiling when this Administration refuses to make cuts, Dog? I'm all ears. Do you think that Congress should just keep giving this President a blank check on spending? When "we" are being threatened with another credit downgrade? I'm sorry but I have seen zero willingness by Barack Obama to make any meaningful ( and politically painful!) cuts. At best he's willing to propose cuts years down the road (that someone else will have to make) in return for more spending now.

We just got $41 dollars in tax increases to every dollar in spending cuts with this last "compromise". So when does Barack Obama make good on his pledge to cut spending?

 

[saveliberty]

Your right, we should pay our bills. Guess Congress will have to cut expenses in order to pay the bills with what they have huh?

Hint: The first cuts are with government employees.

 

[Mac1958]

The Democrats just got the taxes they demanded. They forced the GOP's hand by painting "them" as the culprits if we went over the fiscal cliff. So we kicked spending cuts further down the road "once again". Once again we will have to deal with that in a debt ceiling debate and once again liberals will try and paint conservatives as "mean and heartless" simply for asking for fiscal sanity.

We don't have a choice here, folks! We HAVE to cut spending and we have to start now.

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, such thoughtful pragmatism is frowned upon in today's GOP.

.

 

[Oldstyle]

I mean it's all good and well to cast stones at others for being "unreasonable" but that charge rings a bit hollow when no spending cuts are ever made.

It's Congress' "job" to handle purse strings. It's part of our system of checks and balances to keep the Presidency from having too much power. The notion of Barack Obama that Congress should simply keep raising the debt ceiling so that he can put the agenda he wishes in place without any interference is wishful thinking at best.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Democrats just got the taxes they demanded. They forced the GOP's hand by painting "them" as the culprits if we went over the fiscal cliff. So we kicked spending cuts further down the road "once again". Once again we will have to deal with that in a debt ceiling debate and once again liberals will try and paint conservatives as "mean and heartless" simply for asking for fiscal sanity.

We don't have a choice here, folks! We HAVE to cut spending and we have to start now.

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, such thoughtful pragmatism is frowned upon in today's GOP.

.

I'm curious...what is "pragmatic" about running trillion dollar deficits and ignoring cautions from the rating agencies that we risk another credit downgrade if we continue to do so? I'm sorry, Mac...but I see very little that is "thoughtful" in that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Democrats just got the taxes they demanded. They forced the GOP's hand by painting "them" as the culprits if we went over the fiscal cliff. So we kicked spending cuts further down the road "once again". Once again we will have to deal with that in a debt ceiling debate and once again liberals will try and paint conservatives as "mean and heartless" simply for asking for fiscal sanity.

We don't have a choice here, folks! We HAVE to cut spending and we have to start now.

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

So what would you suggest as an alternative to threats to not increase the debt ceiling when this Administration refuses to make cuts, Dog? I'm all ears. Do you think that Congress should just keep giving this President a blank check on spending? When "we" are being threatened with another credit downgrade? I'm sorry but I have seen zero willingness by Barack Obama to make any meaningful ( and politically painful!) cuts. At best he's willing to propose cuts years down the road (that someone else will have to make) in return for more spending now.

We just got $41 dollars in tax increases to every dollar in spending cuts with this last "compromise". So when does Barack Obama make good on his pledge to cut spending?

I don't think you have to hold a gun on everyone to get meaningful cuts.
Like you, I had hoped that the fiscal cliff negotiations could create a much larger deal that included spending cuts. Why that didn't happen is every bit as much the GOP's fault as it is Obama's and the Democrats'.

The party that gets out front on this and puts together a package of cuts that makes both the far left squeal "too much" and the far right squeal "not enough" will get the upper hand in this and they'll draw the support of moderates. THe GOP pandering to the far right is not going to produce any progress any more than will the Democrats pandering to the far left.

Put the proposal together and then present it to the people. THAT will put pressure on the other guys to put up or shut up.

That's MHO anyway.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I mean it's all good and well to cast stones at others for being "unreasonable" but that charge rings a bit hollow when no spending cuts are ever made.

It's Congress' "job" to handle purse strings. It's part of our system of checks and balances to keep the Presidency from having too much power. The notion of Barack Obama that Congress should simply keep raising the debt ceiling so that he can put the agenda he wishes in place without any interference is wishful thinking at best.

The notion that House Republicans should get a second chance at defeating legislation that has already passed both houses and been signed into law is what is wishful thinking imho.

Defaulting on our financial obligations WILL result in a downgrade and even further economic chaos without question.

 

[Mac1958]

Agree 100%

But threatening to default on bills and creating economic chaos is NOT the way to lead us into fiscal sanity. It will only HURT the effort.

Moderates - the group Romney lost by 16 points in the last election - WILL support spending cuts and fiscal sanity. Just don't hitch it to the radical, suicide-bombers who are not winning any support for the effort by threatening economic chaos. It kills your credibilty on fiscal responsibility.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, such thoughtful pragmatism is frowned upon in today's GOP.

.

I'm curious...what is "pragmatic" about running trillion dollar deficits and ignoring cautions from the rating agencies that we risk another credit downgrade if we continue to do so? I'm sorry, Mac...but I see very little that is "thoughtful" in that.

There is absolutely nothing pragmatic or thoughtful about it. It's an immoral dereliction of duty by our "leaders" that has taken place for decades.

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

If you really think that defaulting on our debts when the global economy is teetering on oblivion is a good idea, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. If you think that being the party to blame for gumming up the works and plunging us into a disaster is a good idea for future elections, same thing.

Most of the voting public is going to blame the GOP, despite its narcissistic stance, its belief that it's "saving" us. If you don't consider how the optics of this are going to damage the party and its ability to do anything in the future, well...

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how we're going to be able to DO something about it. And nothing can be done about it if one party is going to absolutely destroy its credibility with simplistic absolutism, giving even MORE power to the other party.

I started to say that I don't care if one party self-destructs or not as long as they don't insist on taking everyone else with them. But even that isn't 100% true. I want the checks and balances of two parties sharing power. Heck, I could go with five or six parties of roughly equal strength sharing power. That would really require cooperation and working together.

I don't like the notion of one party calling all the shots.

 

[saveliberty]

You have a circular flow chart here Mac. Best to break the chain ASAP, regardless of where we are in the cycle.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You have a circular flow chart here Mac. Best to break the chain ASAP, regardless of where we are in the cycle.

My personal opinion is that you don't have to break the nation's economy and markets to do it.

Refusing to pay your bills is not promoting fiscal responsibility.

Just MHO - if the GOP had been any more fiscally responsible when THEY were the ones writing all the checks, more folks would listen more carefully when they warn of "out of control spending."

Spending IS out of control imho - but it wasn't any better when the GOP was in charge of it.

 

[WillowTree]

You have a circular flow chart here Mac. Best to break the chain ASAP, regardless of where we are in the cycle.

My personal opinion is that you don't have to break the nation's economy and markets to do it.

Refusing to pay your bills is not promoting fiscal responsibility.

Just MHO - if the GOP had been any more fiscally responsible when THEY were the ones writing all the checks, more folks would listen more carefully when they warn of "out of control spending."

Spending IS out of control imho - but it wasn't any better when the GOP was in charge of it.

 

[saveliberty]

You have a circular flow chart here Mac. Best to break the chain ASAP, regardless of where we are in the cycle.

My personal opinion is that you don't have to break the nation's economy and markets to do it.

Refusing to pay your bills is not promoting fiscal responsibility.

Just MHO - if the GOP had been any more fiscally responsible when THEY were the ones writing all the checks, more folks would listen more carefully when they warn of "out of control spending."

Spending IS out of control imho - but it wasn't any better when the GOP was in charge of it.

Yep, that's how circular flow works. The ceiling can't be touched its irresponsible not to pay your bills. Next is spending is too hard to cut, so many will suffer, look at this recent disaster, you really can't make a difference without cutting social security and we just can't do that. Then its, hey we NEED to rasie taxes. Have to go cold turkey.