Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Killfile's column >>

KILLFILE

Home Page
Epicurean Intelligentsia
Articles Posted: 382  Links Seeded: 10284
Member Since: 2/2006  Last Seen: 5/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama's Nuclear Option

Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
politics, obama, gop, republican, budget, constitution, debt-ceiling, boehner, nuclear-option, 14th-ammendment
By Killfile
Advertise | AdChoices

More than anything else, the juvenile, irresponsible, and wholly unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling highlights the uncomfortable reality that only half of this country's political system is within spitting distance of reality. Over the course of the last thirty or so years the Republican party has transitioned from the party of fiscal responsibility to the party of irrational fantasy-based politics: Fox News, birther conspiracy theories, and paranoid delusions of a socialist dystopia are, sadly, only the tip of the iceberg and what started out as a novel way to motivate the party base has metastasized into a full-blown industrial strength dose of crazy now aimed squarely at the US Dollar itself.


 

Bluntly put, if the House Republicans do not vote to extend the debt ceiling the US Government could default on its debts and erase, in a day, the confidence and stability that generations of Americans have made synonymous with the US dollar.

Nevermind that even a child can see that the debt is insurmountable by budget cuts alone; nevermind that every committee, task force, and expert opinion on the topic says the same thing; nevermind that even a complete government shutdown - a 100% cut to all US Government services - would not be enough to prevent the debt from passing the ceiling; nevermind all of that.

The Republicans in Congress want spending cuts and no-new-revenue to solve the US debt crisis; it's beyond idiotic.

Yet every time these fiscally insane Teapublicans wave their pocket copies of the Constitution about and wail about the various allegedly unconstitutional things the Obama Administration has supposedly done, it becomes increasingly clear that none of them have actually read - much less understood - the document they pretend to hold in such high regard. The 14th Amendment is particularly unpopular with the "Crash the dollar to spite Obama and his unconstitutional healthcare bill and illegal Libyan war" set, and it so happens that the 14th Amendment contains a little known provision way down in Section 4 that casts this whole debt ceiling nonsense in a new light.

Sentence one of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

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.

If the President's behavior at the White House Correspondents' dinner - mere hours before he announced the death of Osama Bin Laden - is any indication, the White House poker games must be legendary indeed. President Obama plays his cards close to his chest and seems always to have an ace up his sleeve.

The White House and the House Republicans are engaged in a game of political chicken -- each daring the other to call their bluff and allow the government to default yet, if Obama's intent is and always has been to use the 14th Amendment to prevent default should the House fail to back down the dynamics of the game change dramatically.

The debt ceiling negotiations have been compared to a hostage situation and the comparison is extraordinarily apt -- Boehner holds a proverbial gun to the head of the US Economy and demands concessions. But what if that gun isn't loaded? What if Boehner doesn't know it?

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Killfile's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 2012 US Elections, cheapdirtystuntsbyGOPfascists, DemGuys, Democrats, dumberthandirt, EconVine, Election News, EthicsVine, FactVine, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, GOP Watch , LaborVine, Law Vine, Left of Center, Newsvine HONOR Vine, Obamaholics Anonymous, Open Minded, Political Analysis, Political Economy , Seeders and Posters w/ Manners, Skeptics, US News and Views
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (202)
Killfile

Invoking the 14th and declaring that the US is not in default -- that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional -- would be a pretty huge measure for the President to take but not a stupid one.

For starters, it would spare the US a great deal of financial turmoil which - let's be honest - would look GREAT in the polls. It would also force the Congress - the only folks with standing to sue - to essentially sue FOR default, which would be political suicide and it would quite definitively cast the Republicans as the "bad guys" in all of this.

  • 30 votes
#1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:40 PM EDT
jwtiii

But I like it. . . Also, how about dissolving both houses of the legislature for one week pending "emergency" judicial appointments? And do 'em both at the same time. . .

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:18 PM EDT
bob-1478320

I thought courts ruled on consitutionality ,not the head of a political party

    #1.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:12 PM EDT
    Wet WillieDeleted
    Killfile

    I thought courts ruled on consitutionality ,not the head of a political party

    The Courts rule on it, but in order for a case to be brought before the Court there has to be a challenge. Obama can essentially do the same thing he's doing with the Defense of Marriage Act -- "I'm not going to enforce this because it's unconstitutional" -- and force Congress to sue him in federal Court to prove otherwise.

    That's HOW constitutional challenges happen. When the legislature of a state bans handguns and some gun shop continues selling them because they figure the ban is unconstitutional, that's exactly the same thing.

    @Wet Willie

    It would make him look like an imbecile with no connection to reality.

    I'm gonna hazard a guess here (based on the tone of your other comments) and say that you think that about him anyway. Indeed, I'd guess you'd say the same thing no matter what he does.

    • 25 votes
    #1.4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:41 PM EDT
    Chris-382117

    Killfile,

    I am well aware that we will need to raise taxes (Probably back to those of the Clinton era or even before), as well as raising the debt ceiling to give us some working room. However, I am not willing to do either until someone can put a few controls on congress and lock up the bottle of "Old Spendaholic" that they have been drinking.

    The problem, as I see it, is the way congress has done things for the past 50+ years; they have grown addicted to the taste of the taxpayer's purse. They spend like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse or a high maintenance wife in a Tiffany's & Co. Store. Each year Congress spent more because "they could" and the next year, it was even more because "we did it last year." Keep eating" this way, year after year, and before long, you will be a 750lb shut-in that can't get through the friggin' door. That is what I think they have become.This isn't one party, it is both equally and neither has proven to have any responsibility or accountability except to their corporate / special interest / ideological masters. Do you disagree with my assessment? If so, why?

    I am all for a "Clean Bill" as some call it just as soon as you can find me a "Clean Politician" that will not spend the public treasury on his friends, supporters, lobbyist, and contributors like that drunk sailor. Jefferson Smith doesn't exist and, until he does, there have to be some restraints on Sen. Jack S. Phogbound. That is why I want the debt ceiling increase attached to real spending cuts. Otherwise, they will just grab the bottle, pull down their zipper, and continue on more trips to the red light district as they have done for so many years. Do you disagree with this?

    Congress, et.al, have proven that they are incapable of curbing their diet regarding the public treasury. They have created a $14 Trillion debt, raided the FICA fund and replaced the money with IOU's (about another $4 Trillion), and created a series of underfunded liabilities (Prescription Drugs, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) worth another $100 Trillion. If you look at the taxpayers liability (the 53% that pay Federal income taxes) according to debtclock.org, we are each on the hook for about $1.2 Million each. IMO, if I were able to give them enough money to completely clear the National Debt and all of the underfunded liabilities, in less than 20 years, congress would have us right back where they are today. There is no accountability or responsibility in Washington from either party that has held power.

    I consider this requirement for the debt ceiling increase being tied to an equal cut in expenses as a first attempt at some form of Behavioral Modification for Congress. That is where I think the real problem lies. Have you ever been on the Weight Watchers web site? I don't know about you, but at almost 63, I just can't exercise enough, with all of the other things I have to do, to keep the weight off. After my wife died, I didn't always eat the way I should (way too much Pizza and Beer) and now that I care for my 88 year old step father, time is at a premium. I had put on about 55 unwanted (and unneeded) pounds.

    I went to the site and found that its true function is to modify ones behavior using their "point" system. Showing you that you can have"This" but it will cost you "That". In a program like this, you start with a point value. After you loose a certain amount, your daily point total drops also (you can't have as much). It works, I'm down 64 lbs and I'm within 20 lbs of what I was when I got off active duty with the Marine Corps in 1972; all from just behavioral Modification and enforcing discipline.

    If we don't start modifying congresses behavior, they will continue to do as they have always done because that is what gets them elected. I understand that we need Tax Increases, loophole removal, AND spending Cuts for EVERYONE. I also think that everyone needs to pay some Federal Tax, even if the poor pay only a buck or two. If you don't have any skin in the game, there is no reason to try to improve it. If you aren't paying any taxes, why should you care if someone else pays? Do you disagree with this?

    While 1 to 1 spending to debt ceiling raises are not nearly enough, they are a start at the Weight Watchers Behavioral Modification. If we don't tie the increase to the cuts, then there will never be any cuts, just more spend, spend, spend, until the whole country is bankrupt like Greece and our grandchildren are left holding the bag. Do you disagree with this?

    I also think it is time to do in Washington what they did in California in the last election. I believe it was called Prop 25, and for once I think that California did something right. Prop 25 says that, should the lawmakers not pass a budget by June 15, they get do not get paid until they do pass one. If we did that in Washington, they might actually get their S&!t together.

    • 6 votes
    #1.5 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:57 PM EDT
    Wet WillieDeleted
    Coral Atlas

    chris - too many if not all americans are quick to point fingers at each other and blame those for whom they vote!

    Voting is not an excuse not to take responsibility. American society is wasteful to the point of being decadent ... and it's hypocritical to waves flags and talk of God when millions of humans die each year from neglect.

    We have indulged ourselves and we americans think we are entitled.

    We are not. When and if we ever understand that ..... we will be on the right track ... meanwhile american society is going down for the count.

    • 4 votes
    #1.7 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:11 PM EDT
    Robert in Ohio

    Killfile

    Interesting point and theory of action by the President.

    I have heard opinions in both directions about whether the 14th Amendment is actually relevant in this situation.

    Those supporting offer little in support other than the text which you have provided and I think your interpretation is shred by them

    On the other side of the argument, the argument is that no on eis questioning the validity of the debt and not raising the debt ceiling will not cause the nation to be unable to pay the interest on the debt and thus remain in good standing with creditors. Current revenues are more than sufficient to service the debt and to pay the pension obligations, but serious reductions in other spending would be required and that would be painful to the country.

    IMHO this is not an option for the President, but time will certainly tell us.

    Thanks for a very interesting article and debate voted up

    • 6 votes
    #1.8 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:31 PM EDT
    Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

    Hetep and Respect Killfile, 14th Amendment, hmm constitution trumps the bad guys again.

    The Republicans better hope the President out flanks them again and uses the Nuclear Option, for if he does not and seniors citizens (people's mothers and fathers) and the disabled miss one Social Security check, while Republican CEO's make 600,000 a week, Repub may as well just quit politics. Americans will descend on congress and drag the Republicans voting for Depression II into the town square for public floggings and hangings.

    Yet every time these fiscally insane Teapublicans wave their

    It is amazing how kind you are to these corporate crack mules.

    Elect NO Republican for 100 years, starting in 2012!

    • 15 votes
    #1.9 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 9:02 PM EDT
    knightofdespair

    Nuclear option would be to tell them tax rates back to 91% on top tier or no deal, let them be the cause of the default. Short of somehow bringing back 30-50 million good paying jobs there will never be a lasting recovery, time to draw the line in the sand.

    • 9 votes
    #1.10 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:52 PM EDT
    knightofdespair

    The problem, as I see it, is the way congress has done things for the past 50+ years; they have grown addicted to the taste of the taxpayer's purse. They spend like a drunk sailor in a whorehouse or a high maintenance wife in a Tiffany's & Co. Store.

    You might well say the same of our CEOs, there are a lot more of them than the members of congress but they hurt the public in much the same way, they have grown addicted to 25% FY profits and paying their hard working drones a couple bucks above minimum wage. They are sitting on trillions of dollars that could be put to hard work improving and nourishing our communities economies but instead they are being funneled out of the country or used against the rest of us as high interest loans.

    • 10 votes
    #1.11 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:57 PM EDT
    maddad

    thank-you for your insightful & intelligent perspective.

    MD

    • 4 votes
    #1.12 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:01 AM EDT
    Brandon-801865

    I lost faith in President Obama a long time ago.

    He is neither a leader, nor a Statesman.

    He is a cowardly capitulator who has lost an ardent supporter in 2012.

    I will not help to reelect Obama, and will not vote for him in 2012.

    I will be writing in my own candidate, since the system is broken anyway.

    • 4 votes
    #1.13 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:16 AM EDT
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    The Republicans better hope the President out flanks them again and uses the Nuclear Option, for if he does not and seniors citizens (people's mothers and fathers) and the disabled miss one Social Security check, while Republican CEO's make 600,000 a week, Repub may as well just quit politics. Americans will descend on congress and drag the Republicans voting for Depression II into the town square for public floggings and hangings.

    That mirrors a view I have about seniors involvement in politics. When push comes to shove the seniors come out and engage. My question for the youth of today, where is their involvement? It doesn't seem to me that twitter campaigns have much of an impact on anything.

    • 4 votes
    #1.14 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:35 AM EDT
    Chris-382117

    knightofdespair

    Nuclear option would be to tell them tax rates back to 91% on top tier or no deal, let them be the cause of the default.

    So let me get this strait. If I spend my money to buy a lottery ticket, you will not help me pay for it, but If I win, I get to keep 9 % of it and the other 91% is redistributed to you because in your mind, you deserve it; is that it? You don't want to help create something but you want the fruits after they are harvested because You "deserve" them for no other reason than you exist; did I get it right?

    Why should anyone give anything to you? Did you help with the planting, weeding, irrigation, or picking of these fruits? Did you supply money to pay for the fertilizer, hire the help, pay the taxes on the land, buy the harvesting equipment, or did you just sit under a tree and watch someone else do the work, take the risk, and when their labor produced fruit, did you just stick out you hand and say "I want 91% because I Deserve it." Sorry, Skippy, that isn't the way it works.

    • 3 votes
    #1.15 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:51 AM EDT
    real michaud

    i agree killfile, the president should use the amendment as a rocket launcher to boner's head and the rest of the tea party....i pray and hope next year we get the huge realignment election we've been looking forl...the publicons and the teabaggers are off the charts

    • 4 votes
    #1.16 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:52 AM EDT
    benkyouburito

    The most extreme resolution to this crisis is not the 14th Amendment remedy. It is far more drastic and unquestioningly within the president's power to implement.

    I would like to see the 14th Amendment option tried, just to establish it as a future option.

    But this would all go away if Obama made an oath to completely and quickly withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as a 'spending cut' should they fail to reach a more suitable agreement.

    Cancel every unnecessary weapon system contract as a 'spending cut'.

    Cancel every private military contract.

    Our national security is surly jeopardized as much by an economic collapse as it is by what's left of Al Queda

    • 4 votes
    #1.17 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:52 AM EDT
    real michaud

    i agree benky.....we are waisting to much money on these rediculous wars bush got us into...you know thats why clinton was impeached (didnt want to go to war) and why the election was stolen (gore didn't want to go to war)....now grover turdquist runs the country...

    • 4 votes
    #1.18 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:25 AM EDT
    Michael in S J

    Brandon @ 1.13

    I agree with almost all of your statement, but to note vote for him and possibly let the Republicans get the house - come on!

    Can you imagine the situation where the W.H. was held by the G.O.P, the House had a G.O.P majority and the Senate had 61 G.O.P Senators. What if the Presidential election had been held in 2010!!!!

    • 3 votes
    #1.19 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:50 PM EDT
    Zoolopolis

    Lets hope Obama inherited his balls from Pres. Jackson. SCOTUS ruled against me in favor of indians? Let them enforce it.

    He might have to do it to save world economy.

    • 4 votes
    #1.20 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:54 PM EDT
    Brandon-801865

    Michael, the system is already broken.

    Part of me wants the Party of No/Baggers to take the House, Senate, and Presidency so that they can be 100% responsible for the destruction they will reap upon the country (which they have already been doing for 30 years).

    This way, they can't fail to take responsibility for their actions (although, they will ironically blame it on what they "inherited" and Democrats will run screaming with their tails between their legs).

    When does voting for the "lesser evil" simply devolve and dilute into voting for evil?

    I just want Democrats, like Obama, to stop being cowards, that's all.

    The rest will follow.

    • 6 votes
    #1.21 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:18 PM EDT
    Jesse-Az

    Man, liberals are really harping on their misunderstanding of that clause:

    Legislative control over incurring new debt is a fundamental aspect of separation of powers, going back to Parliament’s curtailment of the royal prerogative of borrowing in the wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 empowers Congress, and only Congress, “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Without congressional authorization, the President may no more borrow money than he could make new criminal laws, declare war, or enact a new spending program. The “debt ceiling” is simply the limit Congress has imposed on how much money the country may borrow. The executive branch cannot constitutionally borrow a dime in excess of this amount.

    Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a back-door method for the Administration to borrow more money without congressional authorization. For Congress to limit the amount of the debt does not “question” the “validity” of the debt that has been “authorized by law.” At most, it means that paying the public debts and pension obligations of the United States, as they become due, has priority over all other spending. Each month, the Treasury takes in about $175 billion in new revenues. These are more than sufficient to pay principal and interest when due, as well as pension obligations. (Social Security, by the way, is not a “pension” obligation within the meaning of this provision. The Supreme Court held in Fleming v. Nestor that Social Security claims are nothing more than promises to pay, not legal obligations to pay.)

    ...

    Thus, the real effect of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment is almost the opposite of what hopeful voices in Washington are saying. Section Four puts the onus on the President to reduce spending in order to avoid default on the debt. It does not permit him to borrow more.

    http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2011/07/04/the-debt-ceiling-is-certainly-not-unconstitutional/

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:21 PM EDT
    mikeofga

    This way, they can't fail to take responsibility for their actions (although, they will ironically blame it on what they "inherited" and Democrats will run screaming with their tails between their legs).

    They would fail to take responsibility anyway, just like they have been doing for years.

    • 4 votes
    #1.23 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:21 PM EDT
    Michael in S J

    Brandon

    I just want Democrats, like Obama, to stop being cowards, that's all.

    We can hope they will find more than air when they grab their crotch (...and I say that without tongue in cheek)! 

    • 2 votes
    #1.24 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:40 PM EDT
    Brandon-801865

    Michael, it would be about the only time that "Yes, We Can" would have any "meat" behind it ;-)

    • 1 vote
    #1.25 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:06 PM EDT
    Michael in S J

    /smile

    • 1 vote
    #1.26 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:33 PM EDT
    garyray-501488

    Part of me wants the Party of No/Baggers to take the House, Senate, and Presidency so that they can be 100% responsible for the destruction they will reap upon the country (which they have already been doing for 30 years).

    Considering how far right the Democratic Party has moved.

    Considering how both parties are owned by wall-street, and fat cat corporations.

    It would not surprise me if this debt ceiling crisis was not staged by both parties, by collusion, behind the scenes.

    After all, they both get their money from the same places.

    Follow the money my friends. Follow the money.

    ----All the best

    • 2 votes
    #1.27 - Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:53 PM EDT
    Reply
    Felicitie

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Is this anything like deem and pass? ROFL. Let's just tell the rest of the world we are not in default. They'll believe that crap fer shur.

    ROFL.

    • 4 votes
    #2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:58 PM EDT
    Killfile

    When Congress borrows money it really instructs the executive branch to borrow money. Congress can't actually DO anything; that's why the executive branch is called the executive branch. It does the executing.

    If Obama declares that the 14th Amendment renders the Debt Ceiling unconstitutional and thus orders the treasury to continue borrowing despite the ceiling, the US won't default... until such time as the Court tells the President that he isn't allowed to do that.

    The problem is that getting the Court to do that requires a case and that case requires a plaintiff and that plaintiff HAS to be the Congress (since they are the only one's really "wronged" in all of this).

    And consequently, Obama can avoid default and force Congress to either let him or force them to sue in court for default.

    • 22 votes
    #2.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
    Ronin-2

    Congress can impeach- that is well within their powers. Is Obama really sure he wants to go down that road? Overstepping Presidential boundries is cause for impeachment.

    Frankly, I would love to see Congress put an end to Presidential abuse of powers- that goes for both Democrat and Republican POTUS.

    To bad neither side has the guts to do it.

    • 6 votes
    #2.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:53 PM EDT
    Wet WillieDeleted
    Killfile

    Congress can impeach- that is well within their powers. Is Obama really sure he wants to go down that road?

    I think that would be an interesting case, but Congress can impeach for just about anything and the Republicans have already made a joke out of impeachment. I can only imagine the damage they'd do to themselves if, for the second time in a row, a Republican House impeached a Democratic President and then failed to secure a conviction in the Senate.

    Remember how that turned out for Clinton.

    Frankly, I would love to see Congress put an end to Presidential abuse of powers- that goes for both Democrat and Republican POTUS.

    As would I, but I'm not sure that this would qualify as an abuse of powers. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. If Obama cited the 14th and justification for borrowing despite the debt limit it would be a matter for a civil court, not impeachment and I doubt very much the GOP could secure a conviction in the Senate.

    @Wet Willie

    Isn't that what Hitler did?

    Reductio ad Hitlerum?

    • 18 votes
    #2.4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:05 PM EDT
    mikeofga

    Frankly, I would love to see Congress put an end to Presidential abuse of powers- that goes for both Democrat and Republican POTUS.

    Presidential abuse of powers? I think over the last few decades it is Congress that has the track record of abusing its power, like the House is doing right now.

    The president should risk impeachment if it comes to that. The house republicans don't have the authority to unilaterally decide there will be no tax increases. The senate has to pass the bill too, and the president also has to approve it, so it isn't just up to the house. The sooner they realize that the better.

    • 11 votes
    #2.5 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:08 PM EDT
    Felicitie

    Perhaps technically the US won't default. It would look very irresponsible to the world community and make US treasury bonds quite a bit less appealing. The answer is not to arbitrarily keep upping the credit card limit. The answer is to get the debt in control. Congressional Republicans are the only adults in this conversation.

    • 2 votes
    #2.6 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:21 PM EDT
    Ronin-2

    The House already passed a Budget. The Senate could have marked up the hell out of it (ammended) and then sent it to reconcilliation in the House. Instead they chose to let it go to vote as is- and voted it down. So the Senate is no more innocent than the House.

    They are in negotiations over the debt ceiling. Of course they are behind closed doors so no one outside of the negotiations truely knows what is going on; but it probably boils down to this:

    Republicans want little or no tax increases and a maximum amount of cuts.

    Dems want maximum tax increases on the top 2 or 3 percent and business (loopholes closed) and very minimal cuts.

    I don't think either side is budging at this time.

    • 6 votes
    #2.7 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:25 PM EDT
    DonnaJ

    Congressional Republicans are the only adults in this conversation.

    Now, there's a frightening thought.

    • 9 votes
    #2.8 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:05 PM EDT
    Killfile

    The answer is to get the debt in control. Congressional Republicans are the only adults in this conversation.

    The same Congressional Republicans who voted the raise the debt ceiling - I belive it was 14 times - under Bush? Those Republicans?

    Funny... when the economy was going gangbusters in what turned out to be a bubble, they didn't want to reign in spending at all, despite that being the best time to do it, economically speaking... yet now that we're in a recession they're suddenly all for austerity?

    It's not like there weren't massive debts and deficits under Bush too... the only difference is the party of the folks in charge. Anyone willing to throw the country's economy under the bus for political gain isn't an "adult" anywhere... much less in the halls of power.

    • 14 votes
    #2.9 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:44 PM EDT
    Felicitie

    Yeah but Bush isn't going to get this country out of the hole it's been dug in to. And you are quite correct; anyone willing to throw this country's economy under the bus for political gain isn't an adult. THAT is what President Obama is willing to do. He talks about not wanting to kick the deficit can down the road for the next guy and THEN wants to raise the debt ceiling to do JUST THAT.

    Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?

    • 2 votes
    #2.10 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:54 PM EDT
    mstanley2265

    just curious, how is he kicking the deficit can down the road?

    • 7 votes
    #2.11 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:58 PM EDT
    Killfile

    He talks about not wanting to kick the deficit can down the road for the next guy and THEN wants to raise the debt ceiling to do JUST THAT.

    Fact: The United States can either default on its debt by the end of next month or it can continue to borrow money.

    Those are the only two options. Even if we cut government spending by 100% STARTING TOMORROW we would need additional funds to cover interest on the debt.

    There is LITERALLY NO AMOUNT OF SPENDING CUTS THAT CAN REMOVE OUR NEED TO BORROW in the immediate short term.

    We need to solve our debt problem... but not raising the debt ceiling doesn't solve the problem and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

    • 12 votes
    #2.12 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 5:12 PM EDT
    Felicitie

    By spending the way that we currently are, we are kicking the debt ceiling down the road. The amount of money being spent is unsustainable and the debt ceiling will again need to be raised to cover the money we have already spent. This isn't an increase on monies that we will need to spend next week. This is an increase to cover the MONEY WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT. You somehow think that government is miraculously going to try to spend LESS money? In which reality does that happen?

    And anyone who believes the US will default on it's debt next month without raising the debt ceiling is delusional. Many things can be done to offset the interest on the debt. What won't happen is that social programs will not be able to continue to pay out at the same rate and even that won't happen for a month or so.

    On February 20, 2003, Treasury determined that a debt issuance suspension

    period was in effect. A debt issuance suspension period is any period for

    which the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that obligations of the

    United States may not be issued without exceeding the debt ceiling. During

    this period, which lasted until May 27, 2003, the Secretary took actions

    related to the Government Securities Investment Fund of the Federal

    Employees’ Retirement System (the G-Fund), the Civil Service Retirement

    and Disability Fund (the Civil Service fund), and the Exchange Stabilization

    Fund (ESF) to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling. Also, during fiscal year 2003,

    the Secretary initiated several actions involving the Civil Service Fund, FFB,

    and the Treasury general fund that related to Treasury’s efforts to manage

    the amount of debt subject to the debt ceiling

    • 2 votes
    #2.13 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 5:22 PM EDT
    The WeightDeleted
    knightofdespair

    By spending the way that we currently are, we are kicking the debt ceiling down the road.

    The money was spent by Bush 3 years ago and never paid for, Obama's choices at this point are to honor our debts or not, why are republicans so braindead about this?

    • 7 votes
    #2.15 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:35 PM EDT
    Lisafrequency

    The same Congressional Republicans who voted the raise the debt ceiling - I belive it was 14 times - under Bush? Those Republicans?

    Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi a Democrat who Presided over that congress?

    • 1 vote
    #2.16 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 7:12 AM EDT
    Killfile

    Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi a Democrat who Presided over that congress?

    Part of it. Why, is she objecting to raising the debt ceiling?

    Oh, that's right. She isn't. That's just a bull@!$%# deflection. The Republicans raised the debt ceiling over and over again for Bush but are making an issue of it for Obama.

    It's pure partisanship and yet another classic example of how Republicans put Party before Country.

    • 15 votes
    #2.17 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 7:26 AM EDT
    Lisafrequency

    I am sorry but the dems really dropped the ball when they had the majority in the house and all they did was support Bush doctrine.

    • 2 votes
    #2.18 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 8:10 AM EDT
    Felicitie

    Get yer mind off raising the debt ceiling. Get your mind into lowering the debts of this country. You're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. I want a rolls royce. I really do. Why don't I just go out and get a credit card and get myself a rolls royce? Because, I can't frickin' afford a rolls royce. No amount of signing up for credit cards is gonna make me able to afford a rolls royce. The problem isn't taking on more debt, the problem is getting rid of the debt we have.

    We have a debt problem. Whoever created it, I don't give a flying fruitcake. We need to solve it. Let's focus on that shall we?

    • 1 vote
    #2.19 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 8:57 AM EDT
    Steve Watts

    We have a debt problem. Whoever created it, I don't give a flying fruitcake. We need to solve it. Let's focus on that shall we?

    Sure, let's focus on that. Exactly how would you get us into the black before September?

    • 7 votes
    #2.20 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:27 AM EDT
    Felicitie

    Who said we have to get into the black before September? I don't think anyone has and I don't think it's possible to negate the mountains of spending that have taken place over the last ten years in ...........lemme count two months. Ludicrous.

    • 1 vote
    #2.21 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:52 AM EDT
    Steve Watts

    Who said we have to get into the black before September?

    You realize that's the entire point of this debate, right? That we're going to default on our debts unless we raise the debt ceiling? I'm asking for specific cuts that would keep that from happening.

    • 7 votes
    #2.22 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:28 AM EDT
    Felicitie

    The United States will default on nothing by September. Cuts can be made in other areas to offset the amount owed to creditors. If you want to know what those cuts are see 2.13 of this seed.

      #2.23 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:36 AM EDT
      Steve Watts

      I'm sorry, Felicitie, but 2.13 doesn't cover the information I requested. I'm getting the sinking feeling that you don't actually know at all, which undermines all your bluster about how we could just solve the problem with cuts.

      So once again. What specific cuts would you make? Give me exact numbers. Show how those cuts amount to more than the projected debt ratio. You insist that cuts can solve the problem? Great. Prove it with math.

      • 9 votes
      #2.24 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:52 AM EDT
      Felicitie

      Just because you don't like an answer doesn't make it not an answer. Those are the strategies the United States government makes to offset the effect of the debt ceiling. Those same strategies can be made to offset the effects of the current debt ceiling. No creditors will go unpaid in September.

      • 1 vote
      #2.25 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:08 AM EDT
      Steve Watts

      What part of "show me the math" is not getting through to you? I'm asking for actual numbers. You've provided zero (0) numbers. You haven't answered the question.

      You insisted that we can fix this with cuts. Then you asked that we focus on how to solve the problem with cuts. I'm merely asking you to actually do what you keep claiming we should do. Give me specific departments with specific dollar amounts. Tell me which ones you cut, by what percentage, and what dollar amount. Add them up. Show how those specific dollar amounts come in less than the impending debt ratio. Math! You claimed it could be done. Prove it.

      (If you haven't caught on, this is me calling your bluff. You're failing miserably.)

      • 9 votes
      #2.26 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:14 AM EDT
      Davy-755715

      Excellent analysis, Killfile! The only good thing that can be said about the whole morass, is that's it's gonna be fun to watch what happens. But that's vastly overridden by the effect our collective greed, shortsightedness and selfishness are and will have on the young people; they sure as hell deserved better...

      • 6 votes
      #2.27 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:21 AM EDT
      Felicitie

      What I provided you with is the process the US government makes to defer debt ceiling crises. If you can't be bothered to delve into the process and find the numbers, I can't help you. No creditors will go unpaid.

        #2.28 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:59 AM EDT
        Steve Watts

        Burden of proof, Felicitie. You made a claim that we can avoid hitting the debt ceiling with ample cuts. I asked you to show precisely how, and your retort was to claim you had already proven it (you hadn't) and now to claim that I should look up the numbers myself (I shouldn't). The responsibility is on you to back up your own claims. If you can't be bothered to stand behind your own arguments, I can't help you.

        Bluff successfully called. Thanks.

        • 10 votes
        #2.29 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:03 PM EDT
        Michael in S J

        Steve - simple minds come up with answers that simply are too simple for a complex situation

        • 1 vote
        #2.30 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:55 PM EDT
        Felicitie

        The info was provided. You should go to the source which is the US govt. and find out where they cut the funds previously. That is your responsibiltiy. I don't make decisions on how to cut the budget the US govt. does. I provided you a link in which they do exactly that. Lazy is as lazy does.

          #2.31 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
          Jesse-Az

          Killfile... in regards to your 2.1 post... you're completely wrong.

          Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 empowers Congress, and only Congress, “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

          • 1 vote
          #2.32 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:22 PM EDT
          Steve Watts

          You should go to the source which is the US govt. and find out where they cut the funds previously.

          Which clearly hasn't been good enough, since we've been racking up debt for decades.

          I know you don't make the decisions, Felicitie. Obviously. But you suggested that we should shift the discussion towards what should be cut. That means it's open for discussion and speculation. When asked to actually discuss and speculate, you threw up your hands and ran as fast as you could from providing any actual information. You can't insist that we discuss a topic, and then refuse to actually discuss that topic. That's insane.

          If you want to believe that we can make enough cuts to spare us from hitting the debt ceiling, that's your prerogative. If you're going to state that as if it's empirical fact, however, you need to be able to provide supporting details. I've asked nothing more of you than to provide actual data to back up your claims of what is possible. "Look it up yourself" is not a solution. It's a retreat.

          • 5 votes
          #2.33 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:50 PM EDT
          Felicitie

          The source was provided. I didn't tell you to look it up yourself. I told you if you need details, you should go to the source I provided.

          But whatever. You are obviously not interested in pursuing the topic. You are interested in pursuing me.

          I am not interested.

            #2.34 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 2:37 PM EDT
            Steve Watts

            I requested numbers, and the source you provided had no numbers. Period. If you want to save face and exit gracefully, you can try to spin this as some sort of grudge, but I don't have an axe to grind against you. The fact remains that you claimed you wanted to talk about budget solutions, and you've spent the entire day avoiding doing that precise thing.

            Pointing to a list of past cuts is not, and will never be, the same as outlining specific cuts to specific departments with exact numbers, and showing how the math adds up to allow enough cuts to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. That was your assertion, and my request for detail. You've failed to do that.

            You did say one true thing through this discussion. When it comes to actually having an honest conversation with cited figures on the exact topic that you claimed to care about, you're clearly not interested.

            • 4 votes
            #2.35 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:30 PM EDT
            Education For the Masses

            Not interested in providing what you specifically think can be cut to meet the deadline and bring the budget in line and prove your case mathematically? That much is obvious.

            • 3 votes
            #2.36 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:56 PM EDT
            Felicitie

            As you wish. Your peripheral point is just that. No creditor will be unpaid in September. There is a system in place. I gave a reference to that system. Your 'give me specifics' is satisfied in that reference.

            Thanks and good day.

              #2.37 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:13 PM EDT
              mikeofga

              And anyone who believes the US will default on it's debt next month without raising the debt ceiling is delusional. Many things can be done to offset the interest on the debt. What won't happen is that social programs will not be able to continue to pay out at the same rate and even that won't happen for a month or so.

              On February 20, 2003, Treasury determined that a debt issuance suspension

              period was in effect. A debt issuance suspension period is any period for

              . . .

              As you wish. Your peripheral point is just that. No creditor will be unpaid in September. There is a system in place. I gave a reference to that system. Your 'give me specifics' is satisfied in that reference.

              Thanks and good day.

              I wasn't going to respond to this as it is really not worthy of a response, but since you keep harping on about it, let me fill you in . . .

              That is what the government has already been doing since May 16th. The debt issuance suspension has been in effect since then ALREADY.

              http://illusionofpower.com/debt_ceiling_reached_geithner_declares_debt_issuance_suspension_period_drools_over_soft_pitch_from_senator_bennett_t-bill_rates_near_record_low/

              Geithner’s Letter to Congress

              Here are a few snips from Geithner’s Debt Issuance Suspension Letter to Congress.

              Dear Mr. Leader:

              I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8348(l)(2), of my determination that, by reason of the statutory debt limit, I will be unable to invest fully the portion of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (“CSRDF”) not immediately required to pay beneficiaries. For purposes of this statute, I have determined that a “debt issuance suspension period” will begin today, May 16, 2011, and last until August 2, 2011, when the Department of the Treasury projects that the borrowing authority of the United States will be exhausted. During this “debt issuance suspension period,” the Treasury Department will suspend additional investments of amounts credited to, and redeem a portion of the investments held by, the CSRDF, as authorized by law. …

              The letter is pretty boring and repeats the above paragraph for the Government Securities Investment Fund (“G Fund”) of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System as well, followed by a feeble plea to raise
              the ceiling.

              • 5 votes
              #2.38 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:25 PM EDT
              Felicitie

              Thanks for the link. It proves my point very well:

              The letter goes on and on with colorful warnings about double-dip recessions.

              The entire setup looks like a staged event. Michael Bennett is a Democrat from Colorado who wants the debt ceiling raised. Purposely or not, Bennett lobbed a softball to Geithner who drooled all over it.

              Game of Chicken

              Let’s be serious here. Everyone knows the debt ceiling will be raised. All this politics is about preventing (or gaining) spending concessions. Obama and the Democrats wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want to reduce spending.

              The debt ceiling is a game of chicken to see who blinks first and by how much.

              I hope House Speaker Boehner plays it for the max.

              • 1 vote
              #2.39 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 5:05 PM EDT
              mikeofga

              . . . and then you also said this . . .

              The United States will default on nothing by September. Cuts can be made in other areas to offset the amount owed to creditors. If you want to know what those cuts are see 2.13 of this seed.

              . . . so my perception from your posts is that you really don't know what you're talking about.

              Thanks and good day.

              • 5 votes
              #2.40 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 5:14 PM EDT
              Steve Watts

              Your 'give me specifics' is satisfied in that reference.

              No. It wasn't. You keep trying to claim some kind of victory here, in an attempt to save face or get in a parting shot, and your argument is looking more and more ludicrous for it. Let's review.

              You argued that the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised and we should solve the problem with cuts. You said we should be talking about those solutions. I called your bluff and asked what you'd do. You stalled. I asked again more pointedly. You stalled. I asked yet again, making it abundantly clear that I was talking about specific numbers so you couldn't feign ignorance anymore. Since then you've been insisting that you answered my question, despite the fact that I've repeatedly told you that I'm asking you for numbers, and none of your posts have had a single number in them. You aren't fooling anyone.

              Numbers are the top row of your keyboard, if you're having trouble finding them.

              You said we could and should solve the problem with cuts alone. You have failed to prove that is remotely possible. Period.

              Now you're (rightly) pointing out that this is merely a game of chicken and the debt ceiling will be raised no matter what. You're undermining your own initial point, by acknowledging that cuts alone can't keep us from hitting the debt ceiling. It has to be raised. Your point is imploding on itself.

              Let me make this very simple. If your next reply does not contain actual departments, with accompanying dollar amounts, and an equation on how that puts us under the projected debt ceiling, you will have failed to deliver on your original premise: that cuts alone can keep us from hitting the debt ceiling. I will consider it your concession and I won't bother replying again.

              • 5 votes
              #2.41 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 5:50 PM EDT
              Felicitie

              You create a premise I never brought forward and then tell me I didn't live up to the premise you created.

              My words:

              Who said we have to get into the black before September? I don't think anyone has and I don't think it's possible to negate the mountains of spending that have taken place over the last ten years in ...........lemme count two months. Ludicrous.

              Are you done flirting with me and want to get back to the topic?

              • 1 vote
              #2.42 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 6:05 PM EDT
              Steve Watts

              Nope. Your original post, the one I replied to before you started stalling, claimed we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling and should instead simply lower our debts through cuts. You even specifically requested to have a conversation about lowering our debts. That was, you know, before you tried like hell to avoid having a conversation about lowering our debts.

              Get yer mind off raising the debt ceiling. Get your mind into lowering the debts of this country. You're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. I want a rolls royce. I really do. Why don't I just go out and get a credit card and get myself a rolls royce? Because, I can't frickin' afford a rolls royce. No amount of signing up for credit cards is gonna make me able to afford a rolls royce. The problem isn't taking on more debt, the problem is getting rid of the debt we have.

              We have a debt problem. Whoever created it, I don't give a flying fruitcake. We need to solve it. Let's focus on that shall we?

              Concession accepted. Thanks for playing.

              • 4 votes
              #2.43 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 6:07 PM EDT
              knightofdespair

              We have a debt problem. Whoever created it, I don't give a flying fruitcake. We need to solve it. Let's focus on that shall we?

              First step of curing alcoholism is to admit you have a problem and recognize the damage you caused. Why should we clean up Bush's fiscal diarrhea when most of his followers still fail to see the damage they caused and are actively still trying to make it worse? Gutting social safety nets is NOT going to save any money - these people still need jobs and pretending they don't will not put food on their table or help them to support the local businesses that desperately need it. I'm all for doing cuts and discussions but only once you realize you CAUSED this mess and all the cuts in the world will not fix it. We absolutely NEED to raise taxes, and if you look at the last 30 years the bottom 80% of us are actually making less and 10% are making a hell of a lot more and paying 1/3 of the taxes they used to.

              • 3 votes
              #2.44 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 6:52 PM EDT
              Felicitie

              It's just the wrong way to go Knight. I don't know how many times or different ways it can be said. The more money Congress has the more money they will spend. It's a proven fact. IF we give them more money, they will find a way to spend it other than fixing the debt problem. It has always been so. The answer to getting out of a hole is not digging the hole deeper. It's filling in the hole. Cut government programs that are not necessary. Don't take more money from productive Americans who are holding this economy up by their little pinkies.

              • 1 vote
              #2.45 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 8:21 AM EDT
              Felicitie

              Anytime Steve Watts. It's always fun to debate. Try it sometime.

                #2.46 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 8:23 AM EDT
                Killfile

                IF we give them more money, they will find a way to spend it other than fixing the debt problem. It has always been so

                That's just categorically not true. We paid down our debt after the American Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII.

                • 5 votes
                #2.47 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:12 AM EDT
                Ronin-2

                Killfile,

                As much as I love American history (Not joking- I really do)- any more recent examples? Alot has changed since WWII.

                knightofdespair

                And the Dems have absolutley no responsibility for the debt crisis? As people love to point out it is Congress that holds the purse strings. And for the last 2 years of Bush, and the first 2 years of Obama the Dems controlled all of Congress. Bush and Obama didn't spend a dime w/o their approval. And the Dems still control the Senate now.

                So there is plenty of blame to go around- and both sides need to fix this mess and end the senseless blame game.

                  #2.48 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:58 AM EDT
                  Felicitie

                  Ok Killfile I concede your not always point. I will rephrase. Generally speaking, if you give them more money they will spend it. Sometimes on useless crap like this:

                  The National First Ladies’ Library in Canton, Ohio, received an earmark of $124,000 (original request was $130,000) in the Omnibus Bill for the 2008 budget in order to create a catalogue of all of the original White House library books purchased by First Lady Abigail Fillmore in 1850, during the time her husband Millard Fillmore was President, and purchase duplicate books for the collection.

                  • 1 vote
                  #2.49 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:19 AM EDT
                  Killfile

                  And the Dems have absolutley no responsibility for the debt crisis?

                  Some, sure. But while Congress holds the power of the purse the truth of the matter is that the budget is written by the executive branch.

                  Congress's purse-power really starts to peter out once you get beyond tax policy. The budget is just too big and Congress' ability to manage it too crude for anything other than MASSIVE changes or a tiny and irrelevant (from a budget standpoint, not policy) number of highly granular changes.

                  Result -- Congress can reign in spending, but not without significant collateral damage. The White House can make far less painful cuts, but has no impetus to do so without Congressional cooperation.

                  If we're serious about reducing the debt we need meaningful collusion between Congress and the White House. As long as either is trying to score points off the other it's not going to happen.

                  • 4 votes
                  #2.50 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:24 AM EDT
                  Felicitie

                  "Meaningful collusion" is what got us into this mess. Heaven forfend it should continue. The market loves a split regulatory body. So do I.

                  • 1 vote
                  #2.51 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:31 AM EDT
                  BAjunkie

                  any more recent examples

                  IIRC, during the Clinton administration the debt held by the public was paid down as a result of the budget surplus.

                  • 4 votes
                  #2.52 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:38 AM EDT
                  Ronin-2

                  Sorry I can't post links; but in regard to Clinton's supposed budget surplus:

                  During an appearance on Meet the Press, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi repeated one of the biggest myths coming out of the Clinton presidency: that the federal debt had been erased, and that we had more than a $5 trillion surplus.

                  This is totally false.

                  Here's the transcript from Meet the Press:

                  REP. PELOSI: ... We came out of the Clinton years $5.6 trillion dollars in surplus, surplus. The Bush policies turn that around. Now we’re $9 trillion dollars debt ceiling when we could’ve been eight—debt-free as a nation by 2008.

                  There was never a $5.6 trillion surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration.

                  There was at the end of FY 2001, however, about $3.3 trillion in debt held in federal treasuries, and about $5.7 trillion worth of total debt, including that existing in trust funds and other government accounts.

                  Read the data here.

                  The claims that we had erased the federal debt and had gone on to a surplus were based on long-range projections that were totally inaccurate, and had never been realized.

                  Why then do the Dems continue to repeat this myth?

                  • 2 votes
                  #2.53 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 11:48 AM EDT
                  Felicitie

                  Put that one on file Ronin. Liberals trot that lie out almost continually.

                  • 1 vote
                  #2.54 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 1:37 PM EDT
                  Killfile

                  5.6 Trillion? I can't imagine what would possess Ms. Pelosi to make a claim like that (I suspect she simply mis-spoke).

                  That said, it is an incontrovertible fact that the Clinton years did erode some of the national debt and that the Clinton tax increase did, in fact, result in a few surplus years before George W. Bush took over.

                  Here's the unbiased report from FactCheck.org.

                  • 4 votes
                  #2.55 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 1:47 PM EDT
                  mikeofga

                  Put that one on file Ronin. Liberals trot that lie out almost continually.

                  Ronin's post doesn't make much sense, since he begins by referring correctly to a budget surplus, then has quoted states referring to erasing the national debt suggesting there is a claim of having net surplus funds which nobody has claimed, then finishes off by saying that something is a myth, when nothing that has been claimed is a myth.

                  Y'all seem to have a real hard time with the facts regarding these financial issues.

                  • 4 votes
                  #2.56 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 2:11 PM EDT
                  Felicitie

                  The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

                  From the factcheck site.

                    #2.57 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 2:13 PM EDT
                    mikeofga

                    The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

                    From the factcheck site.

                    Yes I know that, when people refer to the surplus under Clinton, they are talking about a BUDGET SURPLUS. I have never seen anyone on here, or anyplace else, try to claim that Clinton paid off the national debt.

                    • 4 votes
                    #2.58 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 2:16 PM EDT
                    Felicitie

                    Clinton tax increases did not leave a budget surplus. Clinton got a perfect tech bubble storm. Good on him.

                    • 1 vote
                    #2.59 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 3:17 PM EDT
                    mikeofga

                    Clinton tax increases did not leave a budget surplus. Clinton got a perfect tech bubble storm. Good on him.

                    There certainly was a budget surplus. Did you bother to even look at the link killfile provided, not to mention pay attention to the news for the last 12 years? Do you wonder why so many people from your side of the political spectrum are not respected?

                    • 6 votes
                    #2.60 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 3:23 PM EDT
                    knightofdespair

                    Might as well give it up, they would foam at the mouth and melt into a puddle if they somehow saw republicans as the villains 60% of the rest of the US sees them as. There is no strong enough fact to convince them out there, even if you caught W red handed like Governor Walker was recently caught doing, collaborating with the kock brothers to sell off rights they would still refuse to believe. We are not having a logical debate when the posting righties are all members of Ronald's church of voodoo economics.

                    • 5 votes
                    #2.61 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 8:44 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Luther28

                    From my view point one party is as bad as the other, debt ceiling aside taxes must go up for everyone and the budget must be slashed. When 40 cents of every dollar the government spends is financed there is something wrong with the math. Attempt to run a household in that fashion and see how long you last before you go belly up. Yes the GOP is behaving in an idiotic and dangerous fashion but the Dems are not a whole lot better. What we require is leaders not talkers, the world is full of talkers.

                    • 3 votes
                    #3 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:05 PM EDT
                    Lukepccpa

                    I agree. The Democrat's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations is just populist pandering to score political points because the revenues they would raise would not put any significant dent in the deficit or the debt.

                    If we would let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire for EVERYBODY, we could reduce the projected 10 year deficit by 1/3.

                    • 6 votes
                    #3.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:35 PM EDT
                    Ronin-2

                    Agreed Lukepccpa

                    • 6 votes
                    #3.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:39 PM EDT
                    Killfile

                    I agree. The Democrat's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations is just populist pandering to score political points because the revenues they would raise would not put any significant dent in the deficit or the debt.

                    The Democrats fought to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire. The expiration of those tax cuts would, on its own, bring the deficit back into line and push the US into the black.

                    Of course, the GOP killed that plan... so now they're trying something less ambitious.

                    • 20 votes
                    #3.3 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:07 PM EDT
                    Felicitie

                    What a ridiculous statement. No one has declared that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would bring the US into the black.

                    Please cite a source?

                    • 3 votes
                    #3.4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:18 PM EDT
                    Lukepccpa

                    The Democrats did not fight to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Obama and the Democrats wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those making less than $250,000 per year, and let them expire for those making more than $250,000 per year. This was part of Obama's plan/promise during his campaign.

                    The 10 year cost (in lost tax revenues) of extending the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 per year is $700 billion. The 10 year cost (in lost tax revenues) of extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per year is $3 trillion.

                    Obama's projected 10 year budget deficit is $9 trillion, which includes making the Bush tax cuts permanent for those making less than $250,000 per year, and letting them expire on those making more than $250,000 per year.

                    So, if you let the Bush tax cuts for everybody expire, it would raise another $3 trillion in tax revenues and cut the projected 10 year budget deficit from $9 trillion to $6 trillion.

                    I'm not defending the Republican position. But the Democrat position is just as ludicrous.

                    • 3 votes
                    #3.5 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:52 PM EDT
                    BAjunkie

                    What a ridiculous statement. No one has declared that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would bring the US into the black.

                    Please cite a source?

                    Here's a couple, one from TPM using some charts from the CBO, the other from Ezra Klein.

                    • 6 votes
                    #3.6 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:29 PM EDT
                    Felicitie

                    Klein: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be just about enough to hit Obama's goal of balancing the budget (minus interest payments) by 2015.

                    The CBO figure incorporates a 29% reduction in Medicare payments.

                    Still not in the black.

                    • 2 votes
                    #3.7 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:40 PM EDT
                    Pacific Northwest Blogger

                    During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule.

                    By their own rules, they have to let the tax cuts expire.

                    • 12 votes
                    #3.8 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:40 PM EDT
                    Pacific Northwest Blogger

                    The Democrat's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations is just populist pandering to score political points because the revenues they would raise would not put any significant dent in the deficit or the debt.

                    Seems that even the swing state voters agree.

                    Swing-State Voters Favor Taxing The Rich To Lower Deficit: Poll
                    But the poll... aims to support legislation that would not just support tax hikes, but actually enact hikes larger than many Democrats have been willing to back.

                    • 10 votes
                    #3.9 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:58 PM EDT
                    Rusty007

                    Robert Reich said it best just the other day on NPR: this is a demand-side problem with our economy, not enough consumer spending. Supply-side economics won't work because it doesn't address the problem. Ending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250K decreases consumer demand. Ending tax cuts for those making more than $250 does not hit the consumer public, just the vacationing outside the United States by those who would do more to help this economy by vacationing at home. Ending the Bush cuts for the top 2% is a meaningful compromise and the US Senate should hold the House to it. The polls I've seen here in Minnesota and elsewhere show 60%-70% of American voters agree with this prescription.

                    But let's not wait until the GOP can hold the unemployed as hostages in the negotiations. Let's have this argument, straight-up, in public, and use a score-card for the press to show who has compromised every day in the process. When the GOP has all red check-marks for no compromise, then the president can utilize his executive authority to save the Republic from the intransigence of the so-called Republicans.

                    What we need are more of these brass round things in DC... I forget what they are called, but I'm sure it ain't triangles.

                    • 7 votes
                    #3.10 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:35 PM EDT
                    Lukepccpa

                    I think that we are so far in the hole in regards to the deficit and the debt that neither supply side economics nor demand side economics holds the answer. The government's bag of stimulus tricks is empty. To me, the answer is getting our fiscal house in order and getting the deficit and debt under control. Otherwise, we are going to end up like Greece. We are going to have to take our fiscal medicine at some point, and delaying it is only going to make the pain worse.

                    The whole argument over who spends their tax cuts has been reduced to a talking point that doesn't accurately reflect the facts. I did a lot of reading on this subject last fall when it came up, and found that this talking point tends to understate how much the wealthy spends versus saves and overstate how much the middle class/poor spends versus saves. While there are differences in the savings versus spending rates among economic classes, they aren't as material as they are made out to be. But they aren't the wealthy save 100% and everybody else spends 100% rates that the talking point implies.

                    And, of course, 60%-70% of Americans would favor raising taxes on the wealthy. It wouldn't affect them. They would get to keep their stuff and make somebody else pay for it.

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.11 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:45 AM EDT
                    Rusty007

                    Lukepccpa,

                    To me, the answer is getting our fiscal house in order and getting the deficit and debt under control.

                    With 10-15% of working Americans unemployed and another 10% or more underemployed, our tax base is much smaller and our deficits are bigger. Getting Americans back to work is the best deficit-reduction strategy. Short of that, rescinding tax cuts to the wealthy is not a tax increase, is is a tax cut rescission. It didn't create the jobs that were promised, so it was a failed experiment that we cannot afford to continue experimenting with. think of a medical trial that a hospital is conducting where they find the results so deleterious for the subjects in the study that they terminate the study prematurely, either to stop giving a bad drug to one control group or to stop giving placebos to those who could and should benefit from a good drug. They end the experiment.

                    Providing the wealthy with tax breaks while spending money hand over fist in Iraq and borrowing that money from China is what got us into this mess. Now we pay a hefty part of our budget just paying interest on those loans. So we have to dig our way out. We also need to get American consumers to srart spending again, but we can't do that without improving the employment environment. There are serious ways that this can be done, but we can't do much while saying that the wealthy should not participate in the shared sacrifices required. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the poor, or the consumer public because they will spend less as they tighten their belts to make ends meet, and that will stall any improvement in overall employment.

                    When Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy to pay down the federal debt, consumer confidence rose, consumer spending rose, and the unemployment rate fell. And the debt went down, we ran surpluses. Then the Bush administration screwed it up with an unfunded war in Iraq and big tax cuts for those who didn't need or use them to create jobs.

                    Greece has to un-do what it did wrong and in our own scenario, we have to do the same -- it's just that what we did wrong is completely different, thus requiring a different solution. I'm glad Bill Clinton is starting to speak out on this again and frame the debate. We might get the debt and deficit back under control if we re-adopt his economic recovery plan of 1993, but obviously that won't happen while the GOP is opposed to any taxation including closing loopholes or rescinding failed tax cut schemes.

                    • 3 votes
                    #3.12 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:20 PM EDT
                    Felicitie

                    Rusty,

                    What percentage of the budget is used to service our loans?

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.13 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 8:25 AM EDT
                    Rusty007

                    I've heard different reports that it's between 20% and 30%. Thanks for asking.

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.14 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:19 PM EDT
                    Robert in Ohio

                    A little less than 15%

                    • 1 vote
                    #3.15 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:42 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    mikeofga

                    Yes I think if it comes down to default or borrow anyway, the president really has no choice but to just borrow and avoid default. Let the republican idiots in the house cry and howl "that's not fair! that's not fair!", they will be irrelevant at that point. Maybe Obama should make it a goal of his presidency to take the necessary steps to resolve the constitutionality of the debt limit and the war powers act and put those issues to bed.

                    • 9 votes
                    Reply#4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:32 PM EDT
                    oldfogey

                    Boehner seems always to be loaded, that is why I wouldn't trust him with a gun. As for the 14th, Obama should go for it.

                    • 10 votes
                    Reply#5 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 1:39 PM EDT
                    Wet WillieDeleted
                    Mister Joshua

                    Oh it's "a fair share of the blame" now is it? In your post above it was just the democrats you mentioned.

                    Considering that we're now bombing Libya (which costs money) I'd say that Obama and the Democrats are taking us in the wrong direction.

                    But even so, this article is partisan garbage. The GOP simply wants an agreement to tackle the serious problem of government spending on things like Medicare. Of course, I'd take them more seriously if the Defense budget was on the table, but at least they're in the right direction. And the idea simply raising taxes would solve this problem is just plain economic idiocy.

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#7 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
                    mikeofga

                    Considering that we're now bombing Libya (which costs money) I'd say that Obama and the Democrats are taking us in the wrong direction.

                    Well, I wouldn't.

                    • 7 votes
                    #7.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:03 PM EDT
                    Education For the Masses

                    Are the Republicans also interested in tackling the serious problem of excessive military spending? How about the serious problem of subsidies for corporate entities making billions in profits each quarter? Or perhaps closing tax loopholes that have caused such an extreme loss of revenue?

                    That's the problem as I see it. They're all for fiscal responsibility as long as it doesn't come out of their pocket and only really screws over the poor and middle class.

                    How can so many people in this country not understand what complete @!$%#wads the Republicans in Congress are?

                    • 11 votes
                    #7.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:27 PM EDT
                    mikeofga

                    How can so many people in this country not understand what complete @!$%#wads the Republicans in Congress are?

                    Good question, I don't know the answer to that, but it is definately strange.

                    • 7 votes
                    #7.3 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
                    bob-1478320

                    the republicans spent way too much but this president and his dems in the legislature are making Bush and the rest of the republicans look like tightwads

                      #7.4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:15 PM EDT
                      Killfile

                      The GOP simply wants an agreement to tackle the serious problem of government spending on things like Medicare.

                      While simultaniously insisting that you can never raise taxes, close corporate tax loopholes, remove massive government subsidies to their pet industries, etc etc etc..

                      The GOP is HOLDING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY HOSTAGE to its policy demands and these are by no means whatsoever middle-of-the-road demands.

                      Think long and hard about how this country would look if both parties acted this way. What if Democrats had held the national economy hostage in 2003 and threatened to crash the dollar if Bush didn't pull out of Iraq? What if Democrats had cut all funding to the military (I'm just picking a GOP-popular high dollar item) unless that funding came with a national single-payer healthcare plan?

                      Thusfar the GOP has been the only party willing to play the game this way, but that won't last forever and the longer American Republicans tolerate this kind of behavior from their party leadership the more likely we are to see Democrats turn to the same tactics.

                      This kind of partisan bull@!$%# will tear this country apart.

                      • 11 votes
                      #7.5 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:52 PM EDT
                      Mister Joshua

                      Well, I wouldn't

                      Because Obama's doing it and not Bush?

                      Are the Republicans also interested in tackling the serious problem of excessive military spending? How about the serious problem of subsidies for corporate entities making billions in profits each quarter? Or perhaps closing tax loopholes that have caused such an extreme loss of revenue?

                      Sadly, only a handful of Republicans such as Ron Paul and Dick Luger view our bloated military budget as something that needs to be cut. But regarding the tax issue, the fact remains that tax increases would generate very little revenue that wouldn't just be absorbed by Medicare liabilities. I favor ending all loopholes and just imposing a simple flat rate on corporations, perhaps 20-25% like most developed countries do. But that won't solve the Medicare problem or the fact that we spend much more than we could take in through tax increases.

                      While simultaniously insisting that you can never raise taxes, close corporate tax loopholes, remove massive government subsidies to their pet industries, etc etc etc..

                      Both parties have their corporate rent-seeking whores. For example, neither party would dare touch ridiculous farm subsidies because then they would lose the Iowa vote. Not only that, but Obamacare is loaded with special beneifts for Democratic donors, such as the thousands of waivers that went to businesses in Pelosi's district.

                      • 2 votes
                      #7.6 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 5:48 PM EDT
                      Steve Watts

                      Not only that, but Obamacare is loaded with special beneifts for Democratic donors, such as the thousands of waivers that went to businesses in Pelosi's district.

                      If you're going to go with the lazy "both parties do it" accusations, at least have the common sense not to pull out long-debunked examples when pointing an accusatory finger at Democrats.

                      • 9 votes
                      #7.7 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:46 PM EDT
                      Education For the Masses

                      Look, we all know that Medicare taxes will probably need adjusted but Medicare isn't funded directly by federal income tax which is what we're speaking about. Social Security also isn't funded directly by federal taxes either so don't try to float that red herring.

                      The tax rates have to go up. Loop holes need to be closed. And for goodness sakes lets quit rewarding companies for screwing over the american public! After all, they're equal to any other citizen now aren't they?

                      • 5 votes
                      #7.8 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:56 PM EDT
                      Mister Joshua

                      If you're going to go with the lazy "both parties do it" accusations, at least have the common sense not to pull out long-debunked examples when pointing an accusatory finger at Democrats

                      Fine, members of the Department of Health and Human Services, answerable only to the president, get to arbitraily hand out waivers, mostly to unions, businesses, and state governments, so that the president's bogus promise that everyone happy with their healthcare can keep it doesn't fall apart. (I need to learn how to encode the link in the text)

                      http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/15/health-care-waivers-for-everyo

                        #7.9 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 9:53 PM EDT
                        Steve Watts

                        members of the Department of Health and Human Services, answerable only to the president, get to arbitraily hand out waivers, mostly to unions, businesses, and state governments, so that the president's bogus promise that everyone happy with their healthcare can keep it doesn't fall apart.

                        Another talking point. The purpose of the waivers isn't to make good on any bogus promises; it's because a large sweeping national law is bound to be at odds sometimes with particular state or local laws. Temporary waivers are required to avoid conflicts while these disparities are ironed out, which is the entire point of having allowed them in the first place.

                        You can read more about it here or in the previous link I provided. The whole waiver thing is a trumped up non-troversy, to be honest, but that's what the GOP has been relying on lately in its spin cycle.

                        (I need to learn how to encode the link in the text)

                        There should be an icon that looks like a chain to the right of the strikethrough (ABC) icon. Or you could click on the XHTML thing and do it manually, but that's kind of a pain. Hope that helps.

                        • 7 votes
                        #7.10 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:06 PM EDT
                        Mister Joshua

                        The purpose of the waivers isn't to make good on any bogus promises; it's because a large sweeping national law is bound to be at odds sometimes with particular state or local laws

                        Yes, I understand that, but the process by which these waivers are granted would seem, at least to me, to have the practical effect of allowing the administration to play favorites, which was the point of the article I provided.

                        There should be an icon that looks like a chain to the right of the strikethrough (ABC) icon. Or you could click on the XHTML thing and do it manually, but that's kind of a pain. Hope that helps

                        I'll try and practice that, thank you.

                        • 3 votes
                        #7.11 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:48 PM EDT
                        Steve Watts

                        But with respect, Joshua, the article you provided didn't actually give any evidence that nepotism was actually happening. It just implied that it could happen and let the confirmation bias of its conservative-leaning readership take it from there.

                        If you want to show me an actual example of the administration playing favorites, we can deal with that when it comes. The closest to an example provided was that debunked Pelosi myth. So far you've just done the political equivalent of shaking your hands and yelling "scaaaaaaary!" I'm unconvinced.

                        • 6 votes
                        #7.12 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:52 PM EDT
                        jumpshotjarrod

                        @ Steve

                        Great points. Not to mention, there really isn't much of an advantage for any company receiving a waiver, because all it does is give them one extra year to get compliant - they don't get to ignore the law and they still have to be compliant by 2014 anyway.

                        In fact, the eligibility criteria doesn't seem to have any political flavor at all; simply that the companies whose health insurance policies were less comprehensive were going to need more time to modify their policies in order to be compliant. That approach isn't partisan payback, it's common sense:

                        But until 2014, the Obama administration is granting leeway to companies that offer less-than-comprehensive coverage for their employees. Zirkelbach, with America’s Health Insurance Plans, said that the establishment of the waiver process "shows that these regulations have the potential to be very disruptive." If the new mandates go into effect without a certain transition period, he added, "you’re going to create a shock to the system."link

                        In short, for some companies, actually providing real insurance plans was going to take more time to accomplish because they were much farther off than others to begin with. Thus, said companies needed a longer transition period because they had more changes to make than others.

                        If these waivers weren't being given, detractors would be pointing out "right leaning" companies impacted and saying that the lack of waivers for these companies was simply a way to kill off opposition.

                        • 8 votes
                        #7.13 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:21 AM EDT
                        Reply
                        Bad Fish

                        Our government is incapable of fiscal responsibility. Democrat and Republican alike are incapable of understanding or solving our problems. They will continue to threaten us with financial doom if we cannot continue to borrow and spend. We must pull the plug on the failed policies of these two parties.

                        • 5 votes
                        Reply#8 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 3:22 PM EDT
                        bob-1478320

                        I always have thought it was the job of the judicial branch of government to determine constitutionality of a matter,not the job of the president or the legislature,but maybe when you are the chosen one you are granted that power. I would expect a judicial challenge to any move Obama makes to be filed within hours.

                        • 4 votes
                        #9 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:17 PM EDT
                        TheJonesGirl

                        The judicial branch would decide constitutionality--after Obama invoked the 14th Amendment. It takes passing a law or invoking the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of an action.

                        I hope Obama does this. It will show fortitude and really put the TEA GOP in their place and show the country what their interests are--protecting the ultra-wealthy and corporations over regular Americans.

                        • 7 votes
                        #9.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:30 PM EDT
                        The WeightDeleted
                        Killfile

                        He'll look like a goober and he'll lose. The Roberts Court will eat his lunch for this lunacy.

                        For that to happen someone would have to bring suit. Can you imagine the Congressional Republicans actually fighting a lawsuit in federal court who's central premise is that the US should default on its debt and destroy the long-term value of the dollar?

                        "Cutting your own throat, politically speaking" is neither emphatic nor lurid enough a phrase to encompass just how unimaginably moronic such a move would be for the future of the Republican Party... much less its ongoing crusade against trial lawyers.

                        • 10 votes
                        #9.3 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:50 PM EDT
                        Rusty007

                        Unfortunately, I think they would gladly file suit and their right-leaning Court would hear it expeditiously. But it would help the public see that the next president needs to re-balance the Court. Minority opinions in this session are being carefully written to show the egress of the current bias in that body, leaving open re-hearing such cases when the Court is more reasonably balanced to hear cases on their actual merits.

                        • 3 votes
                        #9.4 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:54 PM EDT
                        Felicitie

                        The central premise would not be that the US should default. The central premise would be that the US should get it's spending under control and NOT default.

                        • 1 vote
                        #9.5 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:00 AM EDT
                        Killfile

                        The central premise would not be that the US should default.

                        But the US is GOING to default next month (or late this month) unless we continue to borrow and no amount of spending cuts will change that.

                        So while we ought to get our debt under control and that's an important priority, it's not the most pressing one facing our Congress right now.

                        • 7 votes
                        #9.6 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:16 AM EDT
                        Robert in Ohio

                        Killfile

                        A hypothetical if you please.

                        If the U.S. continues to service the debt with incoming tax revenues and significantly cuts back on other (unspecified) spending, without missing pension payments, am I correct that there would be no technical default?

                        • 4 votes
                        #9.7 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:22 AM EDT
                        Felicitie

                        YES.

                        See it's the Stimulus all over again. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE MONEY NOW NOW NOW.

                        If the American public and the Congressional Republicans fall for that dog and pony show again, I give up.

                        • 1 vote
                        #9.8 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:53 AM EDT
                        Killfile

                        If the U.S. continues to service the debt with incoming tax revenues and significantly cuts back on other (unspecified) spending, without missing pension payments, am I correct that there would be no technical default?

                        My understanding of the math is that, while that might have been possible some months ago, that we've over-shot the point of no return. The US owes more than just interest on the outstanding debt; we have numerous outstanding obligations for services already rendered which must also be paid. Defaulting on debts -- be they interest or service oriented -- isn't a good idea.

                        To answer your question, my understanding is that your are incorrect. At this point, even if we were willing and able to scale back government services to a near zero-level, default would still happen.

                        • 6 votes
                        #9.9 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:55 AM EDT
                        Felicitie

                        Sources for if we scale back government services to near zero-level, default would still happen? You are saying that if the government stops handing out Social Security and instead gives the money to creditors, we will still default to the creditors?

                          #9.10 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:10 AM EDT
                          Education For the Masses

                          Yeah, go ahead and screw the seniors for political gain. The Democratic Party will LOVE you for it.

                          • 4 votes
                          #9.11 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:27 PM EDT
                          Robert in Ohio

                          Killfile

                          The debt service is les than 15% of the revenue being taken in by the country according to the pundits on Dylan Ratigan's show last week.

                          So we indeed can service the debt and pay social security

                          • 3 votes
                          #9.12 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 2:17 PM EDT
                          Felicitie

                          I am still waiting for a source from Killfile for his assertion.

                            #9.13 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 2:38 PM EDT
                            Killfile

                            The debt service is les than 15% of the revenue being taken in by the country according to the pundits on Dylan Ratigan's show last week.

                            Yea, but the US government also runs a budget that's roundabouts 1/3 deficit financed. The fiscal year ends in October. It's July. We're three-quarters of the way through a budget that's one-third deficit. We've already spent the money we actually took in.

                            • 5 votes
                            #9.14 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:10 PM EDT
                            Robert in Ohio

                            Killfile

                            Indeed

                            And thus they could continue to service the debt and pay the pensions as required by law and then cut back on all other aspects of government and not technically default.

                            This likely won't happen, but there is the ability to continue to operate portions of the government without raising the debt ceiling on Aig 2, 2011.

                            For instance (this is all hypothetical) you lay off all of the federal work force (Except the military and DHS, you close the national parks and museums, you suspend the space program

                            ALl radical and not going to happen but all possible to aoid a technical default

                              #9.15 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 7:54 PM EDT
                              Killfile

                              For instance (this is all hypothetical) you lay off all of the federal work force (Except the military and DHS, you close the national parks and museums, you suspend the space program

                              Let me illustrate the problem with this.

                              Total cost of the ENTIRE civilian federal workforce ~$250 Billion

                              Smithsonian + Holocaust Museum: 1.05 Billion (including some duplication from the above salaries)

                              Parks: 2.7 Billion (w/ duplication for staff)

                              NASA: 18.6 Billion (duplication)

                              Total: ~272.35 Billion

                              Now the US Deficit in this year alone was ~1.5 Trillion. Assuming - charitably - that the deficit is distributed evenly over the year and assuming - even more charitably - that every dime that will go to your proposed cuts hasn't been allocated (in short, that you get the full year's worth of savings) that still leaves us with ~375 Billion in deficit spending still to go and only ~272.35 Billion in cuts.

                              I respect the idea that we need to cut the size of government, but I think those that suggest that we can avoid default at this stage through cuts are missing the scope of the challenge.

                              Oh, and keep in mind that the 272.35 Billion figure I spotted you is artificially high on account of the duplicated salaries (it includes NASA, Park, and Museum salaries twice) and the inclusion of DHS civilian salaries (the figure I found only included ALL federal civilian salaries).

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.16 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:27 AM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              Killfile,

                              Where you are confused is the difference between paying down the debt completely and just paying the creditors. Fifteen percent of the budget is interest on the debt. That is the portion of the budget we are talking about. We could pay that by moving funds from other sources. I'm not saying we should, I'm saying we can.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.17 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:24 AM EDT
                              Killfile

                              Where you are confused is the difference between paying down the debt completely and just paying the creditors.

                              I'm not at all confused.

                              The US government has more obligations than just outstanding interest on the debt. That's a big one, but it's not the only one. While defaulting on that interest would be the worst possible thing we could do, defaulting on payments owed to the various contractors and other suppliers the government relies upon wouldn't help matters either.

                              Credit is about one's ability to pay one's bills and that's true of an 19 year old college student and a 200 year old sovereign government.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.18 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:27 AM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              But we were discussing the debt ceiling and servicing the debt. We weren't (at least I wasn't) talking about contractors and other suppliers. We could continue to service the debt without a boost up in the debt ceiling.

                              • 1 vote
                              #9.19 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 10:33 AM EDT
                              Education For the Masses

                              And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The myopia of the right prevents them from seeing more than what is immediately in front of them.

                              • 1 vote
                              #9.20 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 11:14 AM EDT
                              Killfile

                              But we were discussing the debt ceiling and servicing the debt. We weren't (at least I wasn't) talking about contractors and other suppliers

                              If they've rendered services and we haven't paid them we own them money. That's a debt.

                              The US government uses some fairly sophisticated accounting to normalize its cash flow; all of it feeds into the national debt at a given moment.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.21 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 11:15 AM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              And we should pay our debts. The point in question is whether or not we can pay the interest on the debt owed by the US govt. We can do that beyond September. The 'we need money now, now, now" crowd has pulled this crap over on us before (see Bush's stimulus package) and we shouldn't allow them to do it again.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.22 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 11:29 AM EDT
                              Killfile

                              And if we're going to pay our debts we're going to have to borrow money in the short term. Period. The end.

                              Hell, using the standard accrual accounting that most corporations use, our obligations under Medicare and Social Security -- the ones the right is so eager to slash -- constitute outstanding obligation and therefore debt.

                              Indeed, one of the boiler-plate arguments against the Clinton surplus is that it fails to take into account those outstanding obligations as a portion of the debt.

                              • 3 votes
                              #9.23 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 1:49 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              I can agree with that. We will have to borrow money. The point Republicans are trying to make is that we can't afford to keep going on like we are going on. And that is an important lesson to get across.

                              • 1 vote
                              #9.24 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 2:14 PM EDT
                              Killfile

                              I can agree with that. We will have to borrow money.

                              So you agree with raising the debt ceiling. Great.

                              The point Republicans are trying to make is that we can't afford to keep going on like we are going on. And that is an important lesson to get across.

                              Of course we can't go on borrowing forever, but we can't default on our debt either. Indeed, the danger of attempting to go on borrowing forever is that we MIGHT default on our debt. Thus, threatening the economy with default that WILL happen RIGHT NOW unless we take haphazard measures to avoid default that MIGHT happen in the FUTURE is deeply irresponsible.

                              The GOP had a great argument and a valid point right up until they threatened to destroy the very thing they claimed they were trying to protect.

                              • 4 votes
                              #9.25 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 3:19 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              I agree with raising the debt ceiling with conditions. Perhaps restricitions is a better word. I agree with Republicans; we can't afford to spend unconditionally.

                              • 1 vote
                              #9.26 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 3:24 PM EDT
                              Killfile

                              Perhaps restricitions is a better word. I agree with Republicans; we can't afford to spend unconditionally.

                              So you think that the risk of possibly defaulting at some indeterminate time in the future is such a horrific idea that you'd rather trade that risk for the certainty that we'll default now.

                              Pardon me for saying so, but that's just dumb as @!$%#.

                              • 6 votes
                              #9.27 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 3:32 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              Haven't you been listening? We won't default. Obama will cave. And why shouldn't he? Why is it a good idea to keep spending as we are currently doing? Why in the holy h e double hockey sticks is it so unfathomable for democrats to understand that the deficit is out of control and needs reigning in?

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.28 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:27 PM EDT
                              Killfile

                              Haven't you been listening? We won't default. Obama will cave.

                              "No plan long survives contact with the enemy."

                              What happens if Boehner doesn't have the votes he thinks he does? What happens if the timing if off? What happens if Obama doesn't cave?

                              Christ, man, you may as well be arguing that it's perfectly ok to show up in a restaurant with timed explosives in order to ensure that you get your food on time.

                              "Honestly, your honor, I don't understand what the police were so concerned about. No one was ever in any danger; obviously the kitchen was going to get my food out to me before the bomb went off."

                              If that logic holds, I'll be bringing a grenade to the next Harry Potter premier; waiting in line is for suckers.

                              • 3 votes
                              #9.29 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:35 PM EDT
                              mikeofga

                              is it so unfathomable for democrats to understand that the deficit is out of control and needs reigning in?

                              Not at all, they have been talking about deficits for a long time, since back when there weren't deficits but surpluses . .

                              http://articles.cnn.com/2001-08-19/politics/dnc.anti.bush.ads_1_social-security-surplus-stimulative-tax-cuts-larger-surpluses?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

                              • 3 votes
                              #9.30 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 4:41 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              President Obama is using this time to tell the American people how bad the Republicans are because they want to starve the children and old folks. He knows he's gonna cave. Boehner knows he's gonna cave. The debt ceiling has always been raised and will always be raised when it needs to be. I'm hoping for a future when we don't need to raise the debt ceiling. I think that's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish. SOMEONE has to put a 'governor' on this administration and it's spending spree. It hasn't worked up until now. It will work this time or else I give up.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.31 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 5:29 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              And the link to where they are talking about the deficits President Obama created are where? NOW is the time to bring this debt under control. It will happen now.

                              • 2 votes
                              #9.32 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 5:31 PM EDT
                              mikeofga

                              SOMEONE has to put a 'governor' on this administration and it's spending spree. It hasn't worked up until now. It will work this time or else I give up.

                              Sounds like Boner has you right where he wants you.

                              • 3 votes
                              #9.33 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 5:36 PM EDT
                              mikeofga

                              And the link to where they are talking about the deficits President Obama created are where? NOW is the time to bring this debt under control. It will happen now.

                              You can use the same link, since it is the fallout from those policies that have chiefly been responsible for the situation we are facing now.

                              I bet if Boner told you that you and your buddies need to forfeit your social security contributions over to the general fund and kiss your benefits goodbye, while at the same time he cut the taxes for his rich buddies even more, you would fork it over to him then kiss his feet in admiration of his brilliance, wouldn't you?

                              • 5 votes
                              #9.34 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 6:06 PM EDT
                              Felicitie

                              Sounds like you're not thinking much. Whoever created the problem, it has to stop now.

                                #9.35 - Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:56 AM EDT
                                madvargr

                                Yeah - do it now when the US only created 30,000 jobs last month. Go ahead and throw a million or two unemployed into the mix while ending any stimulative effects from government spending.

                                I'll enjoy watching the carnage 10 years from now in my new country.

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.36 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:33 AM EDT
                                Felicitie

                                As President Obama said "If not now, when?"

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.37 - Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:35 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                mstanley2265

                                Well, we're fixing on finding out. The Russians and the Chinese have already made moves to set the yuan as the benchmark for the money supply since the Dollar is sooo unstable. Guessing a lot of the rest of the world is beginning to share that opinion.

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#10 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 4:49 PM EDT
                                The WeightDeleted
                                Ronin-2

                                Do you really think they are going to stop pushing the Yuan to be the new world currency if the debt ceiling is increased without any austarity measures?

                                Pass a "clean" bill for the debt ceiling to rise and they will push just as hard for the rest of the world to drop the dollar. It will show that the US is not interesting in getting spending under control.

                                Yes, the debt ceiling needs to be increased- but going minimalist on spending cuts is no longer an option. Also, raise everyone's taxes back to the Clinton rates as well. We all have to contribute to get out of this mess both parties caused.

                                • 2 votes
                                #10.2 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:47 AM EDT
                                Reply
                                T is for T-time

                                Democrats are on the wrong side of this debt argument. If Obama threatens to order the Treasury to keep spending you'll see a huge second coming of the Tea Party movement. Only this time it will be much bigger. It seems some never learn from the past. Last November was a referendum on government spending. Blame isn't the way to go here. We live in the here and now and we have a huge debt problem. The key is, who will lead us to fixing that problem. Do you really think anyone believes Democrats are the ones to lead us to solvency after what we have witnessed the last two years? Demogogue all you want to but Americans can see what is going on. The Fed is out of control and responsible for gas prices doubling, groceries sky-rocketing. Democrats are responsible for creating a 1.5 trillion dollar budget shortfall. That is all one needs to know. The last two years are going to stick with the electorate as long as we have 9% unemployment and a weak dollar. It is time for Democrats to get real about fixing the debt crisis that they created!

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#11 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:08 PM EDT
                                Coral Atlas

                                Tea time ..... there is only one thing more despised than the tea party in america today ... casey anthony ....

                                • 4 votes
                                #11.1 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:17 AM EDT
                                Michelle-340891

                                Coral: DNFTFT

                                • 4 votes
                                #11.2 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:20 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Coral Atlas

                                The cumulative effect of republican fiscal and monetary policy since reagan has destroyed the financial fabric of America as well as countless lives.

                                Reagan began the downfall of american education as well as the gap in wealth ..... he was quite frankly an inept pawn of the rich and powerful.

                                America is obese .... not just physically but with an inflated national ego that is blind to what the rest of the world sees when they look at us.

                                It is not a pretty picture ..... instead of getting about doing our business - congress plays political games - led by the GOP who are fighting for survival after the 2008 election.

                                The message americans sent in 2008 was loud and clear ... and it is being renewed across the nation as GOP Governors are acting like Afghan warlords .... and americans are rising ....

                                there was a reason OUR President was elected .... and he has proven we made the right choice ...

                                it is now time to double down and finish the extermination of a two party political system that is as much a waste of money as it is corrupt.

                                This nation needs to lose some weight and gain some grey matter ... and we need to do it fast with the help of OUR President!

                                • 5 votes
                                Reply#12 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:21 PM EDT
                                The WeightDeleted
                                Bubba-939441

                                Didn't Obama vote against raising the debt the last time it came up for a vote?

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#14 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 7:28 PM EDT
                                The WeightDeleted
                                Killfile

                                It's one thing to rally against raising the debt ceiling when its a sure-fire pass. It's another to actually obstruct it and risk default.

                                Now, yes, Obama's speech in 2006 was pure political pandering, but it's a little absurd to mention it in the same breath as the market-panic inducing insanity that Boehner is engaging in.

                                • 9 votes
                                #14.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:48 PM EDT
                                Felicitie

                                Where do you see the market panicking? Again, you apologize for a pandering candidate because he happens to be your guy???????? Why do we, as Amercians, settle for that kinda claptrap? Or is it just you?

                                • 1 vote
                                #14.3 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:02 AM EDT
                                Killfile

                                Where do you see the market panicking?

                                Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the news out of China, but foreign holders of US debt are signaling that they're getting ready to avoid default.

                                Again, you apologize for a pandering candidate because he happens to be your guy?

                                No. Obama's pandering on the debt ceiling was, as I put it "pure political pandering" and I'm not apologizing for that; it was crass and opportunistic politics.

                                But there was no risk whatsoever of Congress' rejecting the raising of the debt ceiling and thus Obama's speech was all bark and no bite. He knows it; you know it; I know it; everyone knows it. Boehner isn't playing a "we'll pass this but bitch about it" game; he's holding the economy hostage to his political demands. Kind of by definition that means that he's willing to let the nation default if he doesn't get what he wants.

                                Obama complained, but there was never a risk of default; that's the difference.

                                • 8 votes
                                #14.4 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:22 AM EDT
                                Felicitie

                                I haven't seen the news out of China. Perhaps you could link to that. At home, the markets are not worried about a debt ceiling crisis.

                                Boehner isn't holding anything hostage. He is asking for solutions to the nation's debt problem. Without those solutions, the whole debt ceiling debate is meaningless. The debt ceiling will continue to rise and isn't that the problem?????????

                                • 1 vote
                                #14.5 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 10:00 AM EDT
                                Killfile

                                First, I take it that you're conceding the point on Obama since you declined to answer it. Good. Moving on then...

                                China now regards the dollar as "unsafe." The usual platitudes about the US resolving its deficit problems grace the message, but the timing suggests otherwise. With China, particularly in financial matters, one needs to look beneath the surface.

                                Moreover, it looks like China itself is in some serious debt issues. That's going to put pressure on the Chinese government and the Yuan and they're not going to want to have assets tied to a potentially unstable dollar when that hits the fan.

                                The signs are clear for those who are willing to read them: China is going to start backing away from US debt and they're hoping to reassure the rest of the market while they do so to get the best price for it.

                                At home, the markets are not worried about a debt ceiling crisis.

                                Because the home markets have such a great track record of forecasting major busts... right? Lehman Brothers? Bear Stearns?

                                Boehner isn't holding anything hostage.

                                Yea, he is. He's saying he won't raise the debt ceiling unless he gets a laundry list of concessions. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force the government into default, tank the dollar, and wreck the economy.

                                "Nice recovery you've got there... be a shame if something happened to it."

                                "Give me all the spending cuts or the economy gets it."

                                Do I really have to trot out any more cliched crime-movie lines for you to see this as the hostage situation it is?

                                He is asking for solutions to the nation's debt problem. Without those solutions, the whole debt ceiling debate is meaningless.

                                Boehner is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It's not like he can't influence the budget. If Boehner wants spending cuts, the time to do it is during the normal budget process... which Constitutionally must originate in his House.

                                Boehner is doing this during the debt ceiling talks because he wants a weapon with which he can threaten the President, the Senate, and the nation in order to get what he wants. If he didn't want that weapon and didn't want to make that threat, he could just push spending cut bills as part of the normal legislative process.

                                He's a thug and he's deliberately threatening the livelihoods of millions of Americans to score points with his arch-conservative base.

                                • 10 votes
                                #14.6 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:12 AM EDT
                                Felicitie

                                one needs to look beneath the surface.

                                In other words you don't have any links to anything close to China being worried about the soundness of the US dollar.

                                As for conceding the point on Obama, it is irrelevant. What matters is the deficit and debt. Mr. Boehner isn't holding any hostages. He's saying that if you spend over your allowance, you need to find a way to stop doing that. Unless you stop doing that, you won't get additional allowance to spend unwisely. No hostages are being taken.

                                Are you trying to spread the delusional idea that the Republicans HAVEN"T been pushing spending cut bills as part of the normal legislative process? Hell you can't go a day on here without some lib whining about taking money from the babies and old people. Puhlease get a new schtick.

                                • 1 vote
                                #14.7 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:08 PM EDT
                                Killfile

                                In other words you don't have any links to anything close to China being worried about the soundness of the US dollar.

                                Actually, I provided you with a link showing that China considers the dollar "unsafe." So yea, I have solid links on that. Thanks for playing.

                                Are you trying to spread the delusional idea that the Republicans HAVEN"T been pushing spending cut bills as part of the normal legislative process?

                                Not substantive ones, Felicite. Where's the omnibus spending reduction bill of 2011? Republicans have been trying to defund the irrelevant bits of the government that piss them off, not substantively attempting to reign in spending.

                                Wake me when the GOP address waste in the military and the idiotic subsidies we give away. Hell... wake me when the GOP sets a target spending reduction within an order of magnitude of the US deficit and actually solicits meaningful bi-partisan cooperation to hit it.

                                • 4 votes
                                #14.8 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:35 PM EDT
                                Felicitie

                                Wake up dude. Just last week this site was in an uproar about cuts to the Veterans Administration health care plan. Republicans have been trying to make substantive cuts that the democrats have been railing against.

                                million.

                                The list goes on, naming 70 specific cuts. Some politically sensitive areas, like education funding, are left untouched.

                                House Republicans want to incorporate the cuts into the latest so-called continuing resolution, a measure designed to allow the government to spend money while lawmakers complete work on a full budget. The current continuing resolution expires on March 4.

                                  #14.9 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:42 PM EDT
                                  mikeofga

                                  Just last week this site was in an uproar about cuts to the Veterans Administration health care plan. Republicans have been trying to make substantive cuts that the democrats have been railing against.

                                  Cutting veteran's health care benefits. Republican priorities make me want to hurl. Why anyone would vote for a republican for so much as dog catcher is beyond my imagination.

                                  • 7 votes
                                  #14.10 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:04 PM EDT
                                  Killfile

                                  Wake up dude. Just last week this site was in an uproar about cuts to the Veterans Administration health care plan. Republicans have been trying to make substantive cuts that the democrats have been railing against.

                                  That's a perfect example of my point about the GOP's cuts being political targets rather than substantive efforts to bring down the deficit.

                                  The ENTIRE department of Veterans Affairs costs ~56 Billion a year. The cuts the House Republicans were considering came to 6 Billion.

                                  Now, let's remember, that the US Deficit last year was 1.171 Trillion or 1,171 Billion.

                                  So the GOP's cuts to Veterans' Affairs amounted to 0.5% of the budget deficit.

                                  Why would anyone who gives a @!$%# about veterans accept a 6 Billion dollar cut from veterans affairs - removing healthcare from 1.3 million vets - in exchange for a 0.5% reduction in the deficit?

                                  If Republicans want to get serious about cutting the deficit, rather than just using deficit reduction as a tool to attack programs they don't like, they have to put together a meaningfully bipartisan bill and they have to be willing to allow things like tax increases, subsidy elimination, and defense reduction.

                                  Until they're willing to do that, they're never going to have any credibility on the deficit front.

                                  • 6 votes
                                  #14.11 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:22 PM EDT
                                  Felicitie

                                  See 14.9.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #14.12 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 5:06 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  Mister Joshua

                                  For the record this option is blatantly unconstitutional. Ahem, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:

                                  No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law...

                                  So as you can see, the responsibility of appropriating the nation's fiances is unambiguously the power of Congress. The language in the 14th amendment reiterated that the US debt, which was obligated, was seperate from the debt of the Confederacy, which wasn't since it wasn't incurred by an act of the United States Congress.

                                  Even by "the constitution is a living breathing document" standards, you'd have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to make this absurd notion stick.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#15 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:00 PM EDT
                                  Killfile

                                  For the record this option is blatantly unconstitutional. Ahem, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:

                                  First, amendments clearly amend the text of the rest of the Constitution, that being largely the reason they're called "amendments"

                                  No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law...

                                  Second, Congress has already decreed that this money be drawn from the Treasury, the Treasury just doesn't actually have the money. That's why we're talking about the debt ceiling and not the general budget.

                                  So as you can see, the responsibility of appropriating the nation's fiances is unambiguously the power of Congress.

                                  Absolutely. That said, we're not talking about appropriating the nation's finances; we're talking about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling which is not addressed in the un-amended text of the constitution, ambiguously or otherwise.

                                  The language in the 14th amendment reiterated that the US debt, which was obligated, was seperate from the debt of the Confederacy, which wasn't since it wasn't incurred by an act of the United States Congress.

                                  It does that TOO but the text of the amendment is fairly clear. "The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned"

                                  Or are we going to start limiting 2nd Amendment rights to 18th Century firearms... since that was all the framers were talking about in THAT amendment?

                                  Even by "the constitution is a living breathing document" standards, you'd have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to make this absurd notion stick.

                                  All you've really got to do is respect the document as written. We're not talking about video games as constitutionally protected speech or corporations entitlement to the rights of citizens here (both recent decisions).

                                  • 9 votes
                                  #15.1 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
                                  Mister Joshua

                                  First, amendments clearly amend the text of the rest of the Constitution, that being largely the reason they're called "amendments"

                                  If it were the intention of the amendment to do away with previous powers and abilities of the government, it would explicitly say so, like it did in the 12th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and the 21st Amendment. You can tell that the section of the 14th was added on as a clarification since foreign banks had in fact lended the Confederacy money. It has zero relevance today since it does not give the president any extra power.

                                  we're talking about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling which is not addressed in the un-amended text of the constitution, ambiguously or otherwise.

                                  The Constitution doesn't prohibit a debt ceiling. Congress and the president just can't say "hey, that obligation we incurred doesn't exist anymore". It's purely at the discretion of Congress as to how to handle this situation, not the executive.

                                  It does that TOO but the text of the amendment is fairly clear. "The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned"

                                  But that DOES NOT give the president any extraordinary powers to override Congress. If it did, it would say something like "the office of the chief executive shall have the power to guranteed the payment of the public debt."

                                  Or are we going to start limiting 2nd Amendment rights to 18th Century firearms... since that was all the framers were talking about in THAT amendment?

                                  Okay, now you're just blowing smoke up your own arse. Once again: the clause DOES NOT give any brance of the government any special power. It simply reaffirms that only Congress can accrue national debt. You can't just make @!$%# up when it comes to plain and simple langauge. The 2nd amendment proves my point as "firearm" has the same defintion today as it did in 1787. Likewise this clause can only be understood as an affirmation of a previously understood power of Congress due the confusion of putting the country back together.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #15.2 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:23 AM EDT
                                  Killfile

                                  Josh,

                                  You misunderstand me. First, while it's reasonably clear to any "living document" interpretation of the Constitution that the 14th speaks only to clarify the issue of debt after civil war, the text as written is very plain and speaks, not to what any branch CAN do but to what GOVERNMENT can't do. In short, the 14th - as literally interpreted - says that government can't question the debt of the United States, thereby LIMITING the powers of Congress and making the debt ceiling unconstitutional.

                                  Which doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter because there's no way that if Obama did this, Congress - who is the only wronged party - could bring suit. Doing so would be political suicide; it would be literally suing at the Supreme Court level to FORCE a default on US Debt.

                                  All the President needs, really, is an interpretation that isn't so absurdly out there that it's at least plausible that someone might think that.

                                  • 8 votes
                                  #15.3 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 8:36 AM EDT
                                  Steve Watts

                                  In short, the 14th - as literally interpreted - says that government can't question the debt of the United States, thereby LIMITING the powers of Congress and making the debt ceiling unconstitutional.

                                  Or put another way, in matters of conflict, the Constitution wins. The debt ceiling isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but the point that debt can't be questioned is in the Constitution. When two government actions conflict with each other, and one is in the Constitution, the Constitutional one wins by default. Every time.

                                  • 6 votes
                                  #15.4 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:30 AM EDT
                                  Mister Joshua

                                  In short, the 14th - as literally interpreted - says that government can't question the debt of the United States, thereby LIMITING the powers of Congress and making the debt ceiling unconstitutional.

                                  No, it doesn't. 'Questioned' does not mean the same thing as 'default'. Congress is not disuputing that it owes money, only that it cannot appropriate enough money to cover the debt. They control the purse, ergo they are answerable to no one on how they interpret our ability to fianace the nation.

                                  If Obama tries this than he should be impeached for abuse of power and disregard for the delegated powers of Congress.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #15.5 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:11 PM EDT
                                  Killfile

                                  No, it doesn't. 'Questioned' does not mean the same thing as 'default'.

                                  Says you. Sounds like that's up for the Court to decide.

                                  If Obama tries this than he should be impeached for abuse of power and disregard for the delegated powers of Congress.

                                  Just so we're clear, that's not how impeachment works. Jackson, for example, was not only on the wrong side of a SCOTUS verdict, but actually disobeyed it. He wasn't impeached. FDR was also on the wrong side of a SCOTUS verdict.

                                  Impeachment is for actual CRIMES. It's not just something you do because you don't like the President.

                                  • 6 votes
                                  #15.6 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:25 PM EDT
                                  Mister Joshua

                                  Says you. Sounds like that's up for the Court to decide

                                  Yeah, if Obama has the nerve to try this then I suppose a court would have to affirm the obvious. Your article itself says that the purpose of this move would be to make the Republicans look bad by having them file a lawsuit.

                                  Impeachment is for actual CRIMES. It's not just something you do because you don't like the President

                                  How is overreaching and ignoring a delegated power of Congress NOT a crime? Do you seriously want the president to be able to ignore acts of Congress that he doesn't like?

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #15.7 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:52 PM EDT
                                  Killfile

                                  How is overreaching and ignoring a delegated power of Congress NOT a crime?

                                  It's just not. What crime is it? Who's jurisdiction does it fall into? What are the sentencing guidelines? The Constitution specifically says that impeachment is for "high crime and misdemeanors" it does not say that Congress shall impeach the President if they disagree with him, nor does it say that Congress shall impeach the President if he loses a court case.

                                  Crimes.

                                  And "crime" is not defined as "something that makes me mad." Sorry, Josh, but just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a crime.

                                  Do you seriously want the president to be able to ignore acts of Congress that he doesn't like?

                                  Allow me to suggest that you do some reading on the use of Signing Statements by the President before you get all high and mighty about this. Presidents ROUTINELY ignore Congress when it suits their purposes. Presidents have claimed Executive Privilege to defy Congressional subpoena (an enumerated power of Congress, by the way), asserted that they would not enforce legislation, decreed that legislation means something other than what it says, and much worse.

                                  Hell, Andrew Jackson famously told the Supreme Court itself to shove it -- "John Marshall has made his decision, now let us see him enforce it" -- when he defied the Court in Cherokee Nation v Georgia and marched the Cherokee off to reservations.

                                  I'm afraid your understanding of the Constitutional balance of powers is based more on what you'd prefer to be true than what has historically been the case.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #15.8 - Fri Jul 8, 2011 9:34 AM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                                  sillyman

                                  Raising the debt ceiling is only part a very small part of the solution.

                                  The us has a 14 T dollar debt and if congress doesn't come up with a solution to reduce the deficit/debt the US could still lose the good credit rating we now have. Rebublicans need to honestly start doing whats best for the country and not whats best for their coorporate interests with that said even if obama uses the nuclear option it wont solve the real issue, the debt.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#17 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 10:31 PM EDT
                                  Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                                  sillyman

                                  FM

                                  What do Corp interests have to do with the debt ceiling?

                                  Have you been paying attention??????????

                                  The republicans wont compromise on ending tax loopholes, IE, increase revanue. their coorporate sponsers.

                                  There needs to be a balanced aproach, cut spendind and increase revenue.

                                  How many times has the debt ceiling been increased since 1970?

                                  irrelavent, but Im sure several times

                                  • 2 votes
                                  #17.2 - Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:38 PM EDT
                                  Free Mason-1490678Deleted
                                  Reply
                                  Mark in Wyoming

                                  Killfile , i said this when the jones girl posted a seed on this , and i will say it again , its going to get very interesting , and you are right , if this option is used someone would have to mount a challenge for the Courts to hear the issue . whats not being thought of is maybe some unintended consequences ,

                                  One of those consequences could be a loss of faith from a portion of the people that loss of faith will transmit into possably a refusal to invest or reinvest in the system , the system after all does run on investment and money . Another consequence that could materialize is in ignoring the law that created the debt ceiling , and failing to challenge , could possably create a call for a Constitutional cConvention from the states , Im not sure but , there are a few states that still have open calls for a convention to be conviened , and once the required number call for one , one must be called .

                                  Now my thought would be that it would be called with the intention of creating a Balanced budget Amendment to the Constitution , but there is a problem with calling a convention that some may not think of ,. Once a Convention is called and conviened , the Congress , nor the Judiciary , nor the executive branch have any say or control over what is discussed or passes through the convention process, so though it might be called under one premise , it could very well end up doing what the only other Convention in our nations history did , scraping the governing document and completely rewritting something entirely different than what was . And , its totaolly out of control or veto powers of the existing government . then of course whatever would come out and survive the convention would pass to the states for ratification , without the present government having any say in the matter , maybe thats why all of the present amendments have used the Congressional method descibed in the Constitution , they made the rules to suit themselves , meaning the government .

                                  So like I said its going to get very interesting to watch , and Im going to watch for the unintended consequences of whatever actions take place .

                                  • 4 votes
                                  Reply#18 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:33 AM EDT
                                  AmericaFirst-3626766

                                  RAISE TAXES. CUT TAX BREAKS TO CORPORATIONS -- ESPECIALLY THE OIL INDUSTRY!

                                  Time to stop @!$%#ing around and bite the bullet!

                                  The Democrats WON in 2010 because of dissatisfaction and anger over an inept Democrat-controlled Congress and a jackass of a prez. Either the Republicans get their @!$%# together and do the right thing. . . or they'll find themselves out in the cold again after 2012's votes are counted!

                                  Get the Message, Congress?

                                  While we're at it -- Enact legislation and tariffs prohibiting OUTSOURCING and putting stiff import duties on consumer goods manufactured outside our country. Screw the freakin' trade agreements. Not a single trade agreement has ever benefited American workers.

                                  • 4 votes
                                  Reply#19 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 8:58 AM EDT
                                  "TKS the Engineer"

                                  God I hope he goes constitutional with this. Here's my predicted scenario:

                                  • He and the democrats continue to negotiate and make very public concessions and cuts (as they have been doing). I predict that in the press, they will take the cuts farther than they are really willing to go to make this point. The GOP is over-reaching and they will not budge an inch anyway. This will be a long drawn out process proving the Democrats are willing to compromise and the GOP is playing games.
                                  • Negotiations will go no where because house GOP hold-outs will mess things up.
                                  • Obama will hold a news conference the evening before August 2nd and explain that though negotiations had found common ground in many areas, the GOP position on revenue (increased taxes for the wealthy) has prevented a deal. He will say something about the GOP lack of leadership on this issue and that as president and defender of the constitution and the USA, he cannot sit by and watch a lack of leadership in the house torpedo the recovery or tarnish the fulll faith and credit of the US government. At that time, he will explain that he has instructed Geithner to do whatever he needs to to prevent a default and effectively bypass congress. By litigating GOP deadlock in the media and waiting until the last minute, he will demonstrate he leadership and stewardship of this country. The GOP will be furious
                                  • Following removal of debt ceiling negotiations from the budget debate, the GOP position becomes even more ridiculous... The GOP however, will spend more time attempting to impeach Obama for unilaterally raising the debt ceiling. After one year of GOP control in the house, they will have done nothing but waste time (no pledge to america, no jobs bill, what's the point).
                                  • Obama will be impeached in the house but it will go nowhere in the senate. They will probably still be negotiating the long-term budget in 2012. The american people will be truly sick of the GOP in 2012.
                                  • That, compiled with a terrible GOP presidential candidate in 2012 will ensure a 2nd term for Obama and possibly a new Democratic majority in the house. Then the real work begins on immigration and deficit reduction.

                                  The end, by me...

                                  • 8 votes
                                  Reply#20 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 9:58 AM EDT
                                  fronco

                                  The democrats are getting more stupid by the day, Boehner Twitt's Obama on where are the jobs, and Obama does not know how to answer Boehner, Din't the republicans win 60 seats in the house on JOBS,JOBS,JOBS, is Obama getting weak minded or is Boehner joking or twisting things around. also not one Democrat made a comment on that twitt, to respond to what Boehner twitted to Obama. maybe the republicans are correct when they say that Democrats are stupid.

                                    Reply#21 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:06 AM EDT
                                    oldfogey

                                    The Republicans are like the trolls we run into on Newsvine. To them it is all a game. One that is played by their rules. I have found the best way to handle Trolls is ignore them. Do you suppose that is what is happening?

                                    • 7 votes
                                    #21.1 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 11:23 AM EDT
                                    discgolferrp

                                    He questioned the assumptions of the question. Boner asked him if he had been beating the American people lately. You can answer that question with agreeing to its premise. It was the GOP and Bush's trickle down policies that destroyed our economy and the GOP is still selling that same horse.

                                    The GOP talks a good game but it is all lies underneath.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #21.2 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:28 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    discgolferrp

                                    Obama's strategy is brilliant. He accepted the GOP challenge. The GOP wanted to drive down debt on the backs of the poor and aged, Obama only had to ask, "what are those who have it made willing to contribute." No one were surprised when the Big Oil, Wall Street and the GOP claimed that they needed their money to save the economy.

                                    The rich kept their tax breaks under Bush and Obama. If it weren't for the car companies bailed out under Obama, there would be no job creators out there. Look out, if elected in 2012, the GOP will be destroying your job and taking your home with their reckless policies that only benefit the rich. Haven't we been trickled on enough?

                                    • 7 votes
                                    Reply#22 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 12:23 PM EDT
                                    HaroldPlateDeleted
                                    Michael in S J

                                    If you are up for the read, there is a very good and concise description of the history and why-fors of the debt/debt ceiling issue entitled: "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases", prepared by the Congressional Research Service @ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#24 - Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:33 PM EDT
                                    ksilvers59

                                    With all the pieces of pie in the American debt cutting out a few slices wont solve the issue only reasonable cuts across the whole pie stands a chance of true reductions along with revenue increases. Where are the real fiscal conservatives. A stop gap does not solve the problem it just kicks the can down the road.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    Reply#25 - Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:31 AM EDT
                                    Rusty007

                                    ksilvers59, I agree with your question, "Where are the real fiscal conservatives?" and add to it as a Progressive Democrat, Where are the strong Liberals, willing to stand up and speak out about all the pain and suffering that a cuts-only approach would cost us in jobs, education, global competition and respect for the hard-working poor and elderly Americans in our midst?

                                    I just don't see anybody in politics standing up for individual Americans. I don't see anybody willing to put their jobs in Congress on the line fighting for people whose homes were foreclosed upon because their jobs were sent elsewhere. I see a lot of ducking and hiding behind platitudes, but I don't see any real guts in the US Congress and Senate any more. There is no Lion in the Senate. The Lion is dead. And nobody seems to want to stand up and fight for those most in need and (in my opinion) most deserving of my tax support.

                                    Even Ronald Reagan was more sensible than the current cadre of Republican leaders, but he also had partners in the Democratic party who stood up and put their jobs on the line to do so.

                                    Perhaps they have all lost the will to fight the good fight -- on both sides.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #25.1 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:29 AM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Leave a Comment:
                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                    FUN STUFF:
                                    • Leaderboard |
                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                    • The Greenhouse |
                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                    • Code of Honor |
                                    • Company Info |
                                    • Contact Us |
                                    • Jobs |
                                    • User Agreement |
                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                    • About our ads
                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com