Is it "Congress's" Constitutional Duty To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

[Dadoalex]

Those cuts increased revenues. You're actually recommending we get less tax revenues, not more.

Yes they did. If you happened to be a rich guy.
But they created 20 Trillion dollars worth of debt for the rest of us.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Yes they did. If you happened to be a rich guy.
But they created 20 Trillion dollars worth of debt for the rest of us.

"...the rest of us"... But not the 50% who don't pay any taxes.

 

[bendog]

Never, and I didn't say they ever cut spending. I said they suck and they want to spend less than Democrats, but I didn't say they ever "cut" spending.

You're the leftist, and you're trying to catch me with that lie? LOL

I'm a never trumper, not a leftist, moondoggie.

But the gop initially said they wanted to cut, and they still "say" they do, but they backed up faster than a lady seeing Trump.


Republicans have dropped their demand to roll back spending to 2022 levels but say spending next year 2024 must be less than it is today. They also want to cap spending for the next decade.

Debt ceiling explained: What to know about the showdown in Washington as default looms

In just days, the U.S. government could run out of cash to pay its bills. The two sides are working to reach a budget compromise before June 1, when the Treasury Department says the country could default.

apnews.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

He can't Constitutionally. He's trying to do it anyway, we'll see how it goes.

This has nothing to do with my post, so your point?

That Congress has already passed the appropriation bills under which Biden is spending money.

WW

 

[kaz]

I'm a never trumper, not a leftist, moondoggie.

But the gop initially said they wanted to cut, and they still "say" they do, but they backed up faster than a lady seeing Trump.


Republicans have dropped their demand to roll back spending to 2022 levels but say spending next year 2024 must be less than it is today. They also want to cap spending for the next decade.

Debt ceiling explained: What to know about the showdown in Washington as default looms

In just days, the U.S. government could run out of cash to pay its bills. The two sides are working to reach a budget compromise before June 1, when the Treasury Department says the country could default.

apnews.com

I still didn't say anything about Republicans cutting spending, you made that up, never Trumper leftist moonbat

 

[kaz]

That Congress has already passed the appropriation bills under which Biden is spending money.

WW

Then why do they need to raise the debt limit if they already did? You're still not making any sense or addressing anything I said

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why do they need to raise the debt limit if they already did? You're still not making any sense or addressing anything I said

Debt Limit and Appropriations are two different things.

The passed the Appropriations Bills to spend money, they didn't increase the Debt Limit to accommodate the increased Appropriations.

WW

 

[Independent thinker]

"they" passed election reforms even knowing what the 1st said, yet the gop Justices had not problem with striking down the reforms based on the 1st. imo that's a direct historical/facutal analogy to the dems and the debt ceiling.

I'm not saying the election reforms that were struck down were good or bad, or that CI was good or bad. But striking down laws based on newer laws because of older laws (or the const) is not ... abnormal.

imo, it's pretty well settled that the 1917 changes were not supposed to be another hurdle, but instead was supposed to make extending the limit easier. So, using the 14th's provision the debt will not be questioned to overturn the 1917 law makes some logical sense. Although, imo, the way its supposed to work is that the dems shove the debt limit up the gop's rear end every chance they get ... too. That way the gop will want to change the law too. Or in theory anyway. I think the freedom caucus really does want to default and use a depression to reduce the govt's size. It won't work though. People are not going to accept soc sec not being fully paid.

When it's all said and done, which way do you think the Supreme Court would decide the issue? If you think they would favor the Conservative argument then there is no need to go down that path because it wouldn't solve the problem.

 

[Independent thinker]

Then raise the debt ceiling and stop jacking us around!

You're not understanding the situation here. House Republicans have already passed a bill raising the debt ceiling.

 

[Independent thinker]

With unspecified cuts to already approved laws exclusively from the social safety net. Not going to pass in the Senate. The Neo GOP can try to pass some new laws that cuts programs that have already been approved and are laws. If they force a default or another credit downgrade, most independent voters will blame the no so free, freedom caucus and the New Trumpybear Republicans.

Republicans have already passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling. That's just the cold hard facts. Are you a fact denier?

 

[Independent thinker]

Here is an odd way I'd like things to work. Now bear with me here. (And yes it would take a Constitutional amendment, which will never happen.)

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current Federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any Federally elected office.
.
.
.
.
There would be no term limits on Presidents or members of Congress, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any Federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no "incumbent" advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW

Don't really agree with that but I will say that voters shouldn't be donating any money to the fools and on their tax returns they should not check the donation boxes. However, that leaves things more open to them accepting more money from lobbyists.

 

[Independent thinker]

Then when Republicans are in power, they are suddenly libertarians about spending and we can't afford a dime in extra spending

The cold hard truth is that they pretty much all spend money recklessly. There is only one combination that makes for fiscal responsibility and that is when we have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. No other combination is fiscally responsible. That's why I say we should take this opportunity because they don't come around often.

 

[bendog]

When it's all said and done, which way do you think the Supreme Court would decide the issue? If you think they would favor the Conservative argument then there is no need to go down that path because it wouldn't solve the problem.

I think you're asking me for my opinion on what the SC would say to a President using the 14th to simply increase the debt limit. If so, I think the Court would say "no," and we'd have the same result even if McConnnell hadn't changed the rules for confirming new Justices.

I'd guess that all spending authorization (unless the potus claims "emergency") has to arise in the congress, and be passed by both the House and Senate.

But that isn't why I responded to the thread.

 

[Independent thinker]

You mean those Constitutional Originalists?

Unless they're posers like you they'd have no choice but to uphold Biden's actions which would be in compliance with both the intent and the words of the 14th.

What do you think the outcome would be if this went to the Supreme Court?

 

[Independent thinker]

Yes they did. If you happened to be a rich guy.
But they created 20 Trillion dollars worth of debt for the rest of us.

That's lefty trash talk. First, we are talking about tax revenues collected and now you have changed the subject to the rich got bigger tax breaks than the poor did. That isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about how after the tax cuts, tax revenue actually went up, not down.

 

[bendog]

I still didn't say anything about Republicans cutting spending, you made that up, never Trumper leftist moonbat

Well, Kazzie, I agree with you that the gop never really cuts spending. But you are a maga shitter, since you started with the name calling, again.

 

[kaz]

Well, Kazzie, I agree with you that the gop never really cuts spending. But you are a maga shitter, since you started with the name calling, again.

LOL, I'm maga to leftists even though I've been bashing Trump in a bunch of threads and started a pro-Desantis thread. Leftists are nut jobs. I did vote for him once, 2020, which proves it's Trump forever! Well, to you nut jobs anyway

 

[bendog]

LOL, I'm maga to leftists even though I've been bashing Trump in a bunch of threads and started a pro-Desantis thread. Leftists are nut jobs. I did vote for him once, 2020, which proves it's Trump forever! Well, to you nut jobs anyway

Well, u started it, enjoy

 

[kaz]

Well, u started it, enjoy

Thanks! No idea what you're talking about. I have no idea either. But here's the 911. Someone being maga means they ... wait for it ... suppport Trump. Whoa, what a mind blow, huh???? Retard

 

[Dadoalex]

"...the rest of us"... But not the 50% who don't pay any taxes.

You mean people on Social Security, Disability, Retired Veterans, Disabled veterans, orphans.

Just like the GOP to tax the hell out of the poor and infirmed while letting the rich walk free.