News Republicans no longer a viable party?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns that the Republican Party is being defined by tea party extremists, potentially leading to a government default and damaging the party's viability. Conservative columnist David Brooks argues that Republicans are resisting necessary compromises, which could alienate independent voters who may view them as unfit to govern. The conversation also touches on the need for spending reform and the perception that Democrats are unwilling to cut entitlements, while Republicans are seen as inflexible on tax increases. Participants express frustration with both parties, suggesting that extremism is hindering effective governance and reform. The overall sentiment is that the current political climate could lead to a painful restructuring for the Republican Party.
  • #151
mege said:
Right. Courts hear cases, not just make random decisions at the bequest of a government official. For the SCOTUS to evaluate a case, it needs to have merit and be wrung through the lower courts. Is the President going to sue the federal government to get his case heard? The President mandating a fiscal matter seems crazy to me. talk2glenn's run down in post #90 is put more eloquently than how I would describe how 'declaring the debt celing unconstitutional' would neccessarilly have to go - if done legally.

While I'm pretty neutral on the law myself, the President just declaring 'DADT unenforcable' seems like an abuse of power as well. There's proper channels to evaluate and dismantle policy if that is what he wants to do. The President is not King, he's one cog in a machine. Unfortunately, the Presidental importaince is fed to him by an overzealous media for the last few decades looking for stories. (one of my biggest gripes about ESPN is their focus on the superstars, I see this as an alegory to how the media handles many of the political storys)

The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
WhoWee said:
It was a response to your post that led to the impeachment quip.

"Originally Posted by SixNein
The executive branch would only have the funds to pay for about 56% of its obligations. My guess is that Obama would declare the debt limit unconstitutional and ignore the limit. At such time, the debt limit would be decided by the courts."

I responded:
" I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense - hmmmm?"

My point was a power grab of this magnitude - and yes, combined with all of his other stretches - might be enough to trigger the impeachment process in the House. There are limits to the Presidents power for good reason.

But there are also limits to congressional powers. The courts can trump anything congress does short of an amendment.

But I think you are missing the big picture. Congress is the problem here, in particular, the house. This is a suggestion as a last resort option.
 
  • #153
WhoWee said:
... How do you feel about Congress telling us we can't buy incandescent light bulbs?

I think this is not an American problem; it’s the "Global Light Bulb Conspiracy" raging in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. Personally I think it is pure madness, because the replacement doesn’t work...

A German entrepreneur, Siegfried Rotthaeuser, was so pissed over this that he http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-germany-heatballs-idUSTRE69E3FS20101015" and imported them from China as "small heating devices", to outwit EU light bulb ban! :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #154
DevilsAvocado said:
Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

A slightly more 'comprehensive' analyze might be to realize that the deep global financial crisis is not over, by no means. It’s extremely shaky in Europe right now, some financial analyst’s talks about a "European-Lehman-Brothers-Situation". Greece is on the edge of bankruptcy, Italy’s economy is in 'free fall', Moody's has delivered another negative verdict on Ireland which hits the value of the euro, Spain and Portugal are in deep trouble... etc, etc.

You don’t need to be an expert to figure out what the ridiculous chicken race in Washington could do, in the worst scenario, to the already heavily wobbling world economy.

Time to wake up!

I just hope this lesson doesn't get learned the hard way.

Moody's rated Greece debt as junk.
 
  • #155
SixNein said:
The president would have to draw upon the 14th amendment in order to declare the law unconstitutional. And without a doubt this would make its way to the courts. Now this is a measure that everyone would like to avoid; however, it may become necessary if congress collapses. At that point, the president will need to do everything possible to avoid a major economic disaster.

If all else fails, this option absolutely must be taken.

If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.
 
  • #156
WhoWee said:
If Congress collapses?

I expect the House to generate a sensible piece of legislation - that Harry Reid will choke on and the President will hold multiple press conferences over - then sign because he has no choice (it's not his fault that spending is cut) - IMO.

Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?
 
  • #157
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #158
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?
 
  • #159
SixNein said:
Many members of the house have pledged to not vote for a debt limit increase.

Something must be done in 8 days. If it is not done, the US goes over the cliff into the abyss.

So let me ask you a question, do you understand that not raising the debt limit causes a major financial crisis?

Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.
 
  • #160
russ_watters said:
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

Like I said - an impeachable offense.
 
  • #161
WhoWee said:
Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.
 
  • #162
russ_watters said:
Six: Wait, hold on - it sounds like you're suggesting that Obama should seize dictatorial power, taking over some of the the key functions of both congress and the ussc. Am I reading that right?

The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.
 
  • #163
SixNein said:
You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

I fully understand the consequences - that's why I've been beating the drum to reverse the spending and the ever expanding debt for the past several years. The President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrat leaders have put (spent) us into a very dangerous place!
 
  • #164
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.
 
  • #165
SixNein said:
You are avoiding my question about the debt limit. Do you understand the consequences of not raising the debt limit?

To answer your question, default is not a resolution for budget issues.

Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.
 
  • #166
mege said:
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.

I agree - the Democrats have made spending commitments that require either raising the debt limit and/or tax hikes - that might not increase revenues.

It's funny we aren't hearing how much money Obamacare is going to save us - as it was presented previously - where are those arguments?
 
  • #167
mege said:
Not raising the debt limit means that the first lady has to fire one of her 80 staffers? or less West Coast golf trips for the President? Or does it mean we have to start taxing unions?

Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

Correct again - the limit will have to increase - but the Republicans will get spending rollbacks whether the President or Harry Reid like it (IMO).
 
  • #168
SixNein said:
The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and the 14 amendment may be used to challenge the debt limit.

This is a last resort option, but preferable to an economic disaster.
Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?
 
  • #169
mege said:
Raising the debt limit is going to be neccessary, but only because we're in a corner. The sticking point for both parties is the resolution beyond raising the debt celing. I don't think there's really serious policy debate, at this point, about NOT raising the debt celing beyond hyperbole.

According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?
 
  • #170
mege said:
Maybe we should stop thinking about the raising debt celing and raising taxes as a 'path to recovery' and start thinking more long term. Maybe this is all the recovery we are going to get so the CBO estimates for tax income will be even smaller over the next 10 years.
I think regardless of if it is all we're going to get it is all we have now, so our budgets should be dealing with that reality.
 
  • #171
Ivan Seeking said:
Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?
Certainly not!
 
  • #172
I have no respect for both parties. I respect individuals. I may be a left wing wacko, but I respect the likes of George Will and William F Buckley. I may disagree with them at times, but I cannot fault their opinions which I consider well informed and thoughtful (I just disagree with some of their conclusions). I also respect liberal intellectuals such as Chomsky, even though I also disagree with his conclusions at times.
 
  • #173
WhoWee said:
Do you understand the US borrows 40% of it's "budget" - and actually - we don't even have a budget? It's time for the adults (Republicans) to bring the kids (Democrats) back to reality.

:smile:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:

OmCheeto said:
50% on the top 1% (currently $1,423,580 agi average)
40% on the top 1-5% (currently $227,950 agi average)
30% on the top 5-10% (currently $132,316 agi average)
20% on the top 10-25% (currently $85,891 agi average)
15% on the top 25-50% (currently $47,490 agi average)

Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:
 
  • #174
OmCheeto said:
I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

Agree! Kudos! :approve::approve::approve:
 
  • #175
Ivan Seeking said:
According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

I also remember this:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=54464227&category=views&id=20110425205730

"Moreover, I am concerned that a second round of quantitative easing will further aggravate market participants’ uncertainty about near-term economic conditions. There can be little doubt that a second round of quantitative easing would represent a near-emergency intervention by the Federal Reserve and a signal of duress about the future of our economy. In addition, quantitative easing and the concomitant ex nihilo creation of money will undoubtedly impact the inflation rate. Unsettlingly, it remains to be seen where inflation would settle after the proposed implementation of a second quantitative easing."

I don't think the printing of money can be separated from the discussion of the national debt.
 
  • #176
OmCheeto said:
:smile:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:



Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:


I assume you're proposing to raise your own personal taxes?
 
  • #177
Ivan Seeking said:
According to Michele Bachman who is tied for the lead for the Republicans, a default would be no problem.

Is it any wonder I have lost ALL respect for the R party?

Absolutely not, Michele Bachman is a danger for herself and the surroundings*.


*global economy
 
  • #178
russ_watters said:
Try doing a forum search for "impeach Obama", then another for "impeach Bush" and let me know if you still think that.

Also, I had trouble finding the original quote - did more than one person say it or is "you guys" just one person?

There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.
 
  • #179
Char. Limit said:
There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

Perhaps we can move this to a new thread - actions of President Obama - discuss what might be impeachable on their own merits (things like the level of our involvement in Libya, our relationship in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, our energy policy, czars, EPA administrative actions, expansion of the IRS to enforce health insurance) and collectively?
 
  • #180
WhoWee said:
It's doubtful she believes default would be "no problem".

Oh yeah!? So why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY", i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!" ​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
OmCheeto said:
:smile:

Being a lifelong registered Democrat, I of course view the labels completely the opposite.

My solution to the whole deficit/debt thing is the following.

As long as we are running a deficit or are in debt:

Raise taxes each year by:

5% on the top 0.1% until they reach 70% (~5 years)
2.5% on the top 0.1-1% until they reach 60% (~10 years)
1% on the top 1-5% until they reach 50% (~15 years)
.5% on the top 5-10% until they reach 40%
.25% on the top 10-25% until they reach 30%
.125% on the top 25-50% until they read 20%

When we finally are out of this hole, we can of course lower the rates each year by the same amount, until we reach our happy, debt free equilibrium.

These rates are of course higher than what I posted in the other thread:



Because those were the rates we would have needed over the past 20 years to have zero debt. So to get out of debt we need to be, what do the Greeks call it, austere? And how again did we get to where we are? Do I have to mention by name the two flimflam Republicans again who lowered the taxes on everyone that put us here in our current predicament?

I realize that the above scenario seems a bit simple, but being just off the top of my head, it should. But my point is that "we can not, and will not, raise taxes, on anyone" is about as childish a response to this whole mess as you can get.

I would do the mathematical analysis of how long it would take us to get out of debt with my revised plan, but I have a dental appointment to have my teeth cleaned in about an hour. :biggrin:


The ultimate problem with this, and something Republicans worry about with any tax increase, is that it won't fix anything because spending will just increase as well. The country's total revenue has stayed fairly stable as a fraction of GDP over a few decades, it's our spending which has spiked in the last few years and is only projected to go up. The 'starve the beast' mantra is meant to not push the government into default, but to really find out what is necessary for the government/country to function at a globally competitive level and what is not.

Unfortunately, the politically correct thing to do for the left is to tax the wealthy because it appeals to the masses with their hands held out. There is no other justifiable reason to do so, other than jealousy and greed. However, I am 100% in agreeance that our tax system is flawed. I think any tax increases need to be evaluated with a fundamental restructuring which eliminates much of the hand outs and levels out (proportionately, of course) the amount of income taxes each pay. I think that exceptions in our tax code are part of what cause this perception of inequality more than the actual tax structure. The top marginal rate should top out at the 50k/100k range, not in the millions.
 
  • #182
WhoWee said:
I don't think the Republicans are that far right - they want Government to learn the lesson that millions of Americans have learned - to live within your budget.

Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg

California 1936
 
  • #183
Char. Limit said:
There is a fallacy here, but I can't figure out what it is. Basically, I never said that Democrats weren't really into impeaching Bush. And how many Democrats believe in impeaching Bush is irrelevant to the fact that a lot of Republicans still really want to impeach Obama.

Also, I meant "you guys" as in "all of the people who want to impeach Obama". And I've personally seen quite a few.

As a frequent listener/watcher of both Beck and Limbaugh - I can say that I've heard Rush call for the impeachment of President Obama exactly twice. Once when he mandated that the justice system ignore DOMA and once after the 60days of the Presidental war powers act expired. Beck never actually called for impeachment, but often questioned why President Obama was ignoring the constitution - esspecially for being a 'constitutional scholar'.

President Bush had 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush" ' levied against him. Lead by the former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's left hand man Rep. John Conyers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
lisab said:
I think it's going too far right to ask candidates to sign a pledge against gay marriage (something most people don't give a rat sass about), against sharia law (oh pander, baby, pander!), and against porn (that's government sticking its head waaaay too far into people's...private lives).

Holy cow, an early version of the pledge actually stated that black children born during slavery were better off than those born today...wow, you can't make this stuff up! (That statement was removed from the pledge. Not sure if Bachmann or Santorum signed it before or after it was removed.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...out-slavery-from-pledge-against-gay-marriage/
wowawow... I thought this was a sick joke at first... but apparently not...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bvreW08X0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
DevilsAvocado said:
Oh yeah!? So why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqjqDV4fxLY", i.e. default is NOT a problem, according to the financial oracle Michele Bachman!
"We cannot go on scaeerrrring the American people!" ​

The President does need to tell the truth - as for Bachmann - do you have a direct quote?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #186
DevilsAvocado said:
Isn’t this just a 'wet dream'? That works only in theory, but not in practice??

If you look at the chart below, it’s quite easy to see a clear trend, that after WWII every "Blue President" has lowered the debt and 4 "Red Presidents" has increased the debt.

700px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

From Wikipedia

The ONLY exception to this is President Obama, and it’s not because "the first lady needs 80 staffers", it’s because of THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, caused by the wrong decisions of George W. Bush, whom worldwide and by Americans, is considered the worst President in modern times.

I think you, and some others, need to get out of the "kindergarten analysis", and realize that you are in deep trouble. This is not a game; the wrong decisions now could tip the global economy over that steep cliff that will make the Great Depression of the 1930s look like Holiday on Ice.

I agree that the current debt of $14 trillion, in growth, is not something 'desirable' – it’s a FREAKING CATASTROPHE. But still, it’s a 'warm summer breeze' compared to the ICE STORM that will be an irreversible fact, once the financial market loses the confidence in dollars, and start pushing those buttons in panic.

A large public debt can always be handled in 'civilized manners', one way or another. A deep GLOBAL DEPRESSION won’t go away that easy, and could take decades to recover, and in the worst scenario – lead to devastating wars (as was the case for WWII).

The choice is yours, buddy!

600px-Migrant_agricultural_worker%27s_family%2C_Nipomo%2C_California_ppmsca03054u.jpg

California 1936
Didn't you just post something about scare tactics?:rolleyes:
 
  • #187
russ_watters said:
Challengingthe law is not enforcing the law. In fact its pretty much the opposite.

In any case, which clause of the 14th amendment are you invoking and why?

The one about debt.
 
  • #189
From Wikipedia:
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. From the founding of the United States through 1917 Congress authorized each individual debt issuance separately. In order to provide more flexibility to finance the United States' involvement in World War I, Congress modified the method by which it authorizes debt in the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917,[30] Under this act Congress established an aggregate limit, or "ceiling", on the total amount of bonds that could be issued.

The modern debt limit, in which an aggregate limit was applied to nearly all federal debt, was established in 1939. The Treasury has been authorized by Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt (excepting some small special classes) does not exceed a stated ceiling.

Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:
Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in the context of the Civil War Reconstruction, prohibits questioning the validity of all lawfully authorized United States public debt.
It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.
 
  • #191
daveb said:
From Wikipedia:


Therefore, the Treasury cannot issue additional debt on its own. The fact that the US might default if the Treasury does not act is irrelevant (from a Constitutional perspective). However:

It seems that the Treasury in this instance is obligated to at least pay that debt, regardless of what happens. So in answer to what things get paid first, I would assume that payments on the debt must be paid first, but beyond that, the Treasury can't pay anything. So it's a case of, which one takes precedence?

SCOTUS has consistently held that Articles outweigh Amendments (which is why if an Amendment contradicts an Article, that portion of the Article must be stricken within the text of the Amendment) which likewise outweigh Congressional Acts, and therefore, if the debt ceiling is reached, ONLY Congress has the power to issue additional debt since it has sole authority to regulate money in the Articles, which takes precedence over the 14th Amendment).

In other words, Obama might try to invoke the 14th Amendment, but Article 1, Section 8 trumps Amendment 14.

Even if the courts would agree with you, the review in courts would buy more time for congress. This of course being used as a last resort.
 
  • #192
SixNein said:
Crazy talk is the president doing nothing in the case of a congressional failure.

Would you rather see default?

The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #193
WhoWee said:
The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting United States credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #194
WhoWee said:
The President along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done plenty - they've pushed us to the brink with irresponsible spending - shall I post his quip about "shovel ready" - not as shovel ready as thought? Harry Reid just spoke in advance of Tim Geithner - more scare tactics - no solutions presented.

btw - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/geithner-said-to-weigh-leaving-treasury-after-debt-ceiling-debate-resolved.html
"Geithner Said to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate".

The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
SixNein said:
Scare tactics? Every credit agency from here to China is putting United States credit rating under review. If the US defaults for just 1 second, we will lose our credit rating in addition to causing the bond market to haemorrhage. And we will end up spending a great deal more than the debt to climb out from under the mess.

And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?
 
  • #196
SixNein said:
The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to spending. Perhaps you should give your ideological narrative a reality check.

Why don't you support that - the Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency for 2 years - only now can the Republicans begin to slow down the Democrat spending habit.
 
  • #199
While it's true that the information shows downward trends during democratic presidents (except Obama), WhoWee's point is that it is democratic Congresses that increase the debt (well, specifically, the last two years - he made no claims about prior Congresses).
 
  • #200
WhoWee said:
And asking China to loan us more money without addressing over spending habit will not yield negative consequences? When do you expect interest rates to rise (don't forget the printing press has been running non-stop and there's talk of QE-3)?

Playing chicken with America's credit rating is not a reasonable way to deal with budget problems. If the debt limit does not get raised, America will spend more money through economic decline and higher costs of borrowing than would be spent by simply raising the limit. Even the cost of loans for individuals will increase. Playing chicken with the bond market is very dangerous even during a healthy economy.
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
6
Replies
293
Views
35K
News Paul Krugman Explains True Conservatism: Same Old Party
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top