Originally posted by spruce112358As much as I agree with you, not much would change if this occured. The debt will continue unabated till judgement day with or without Congress. They really have become irrelevant.
Yeah, this one irks me.
If the President tries to do this, I would strongly support impeachment. It is the House that controls the purse strings -- that has to be made clear.
06 Dec 12
Originally posted by spruce112358The debt ceiling has nothing to do with purse strings. A federal law, passed by Congress of course, requires that Congress approve whatever degree of borrowing the federal government must do in order to pay for programs that Congress has already passed. The moment Congress passes a bill to fund programs X, Y, Z and the president signs it into law, the purse strings have been untied.
Yeah, this one irks me.
If the President tries to do this, I would strongly support impeachment. It is the House that controls the purse strings -- that has to be made clear.
Raising the debt ceiling has been a frequent ritual for most of the past three decades.
06 Dec 12
3 edits
If the President tries to do this, I would strongly support impeachment. It is the House that controls the purse strings -- that has to be made clear.
It's also in the constitution that we WILL pay our debts. So president Obama holding congress accountable to our constitution over debt they already agreed to is not a impeachable offense.
06 Dec 12
Originally posted by SoothfastYes, but what Congress passed Congress can limit. If Congress passes 2 contradictory laws, the second one controls. So, if Congress allocates a trillion dollars and then passes a law saying that only $500B can be spent, the second one controls.
The debt ceiling has nothing to do with purse strings. A federal law, passed by Congress of course, requires that Congress approve whatever degree of borrowing the federal government must do in order to pay for programs that Congress has already passed. The moment Congress passes a bill to fund programs X, Y, Z and the president signs it into law, ...[text shortened]... ed.
Raising the debt ceiling has been a frequent ritual for most of the past three decades.
To KD's point: President Obama has no authority to spend money not allocated by Congress. Even if Congress is violating the Constitution by withholding funds (which is not at all clear), it's simply not the President's money to spend. If I break into Fort Knox to take the gold to make Constitutionally required payments, I'm still stealing.
If anyone can force Congress to pay constitutionally required debts, it's the courts, who may grant injunctive relief.
06 Dec 12
Originally posted by sh76Paying off debt is not spending money. It's paying back money that was loaned and that's already been spent.
Yes, but what Congress passed Congress can limit. If Congress passes 2 contradictory laws, the second one controls. So, if Congress allocates a trillion dollars and then passes a law saying that only $500B can be spent, the second one controls.
To KD's point: President Obama has no authority to spend money not allocated by Congress. Even if Congress is viola ...[text shortened]... s to pay constitutionally required debts, it's the courts, who may grant injunctive relief.
06 Dec 12
Originally posted by sh76It's a bizarre ritual, at any rate. I'm not aware of any other country that operates in such a fashion.
Yes, but what Congress passed Congress can limit. If Congress passes 2 contradictory laws, the second one controls. So, if Congress allocates a trillion dollars and then passes a law saying that only $500B can be spent, the second one controls.
Originally posted by whodey1. Truthers. [You mean the corraborated fact of the President's birth in Hawaii?]
Truthers. Carbon taxes will actually decrease global warming in a meaningful way hoax. Raising taxes on the rich and the economy will magically improve, and government trickle down. Talk of secession in America is merely used as a talking point instead of a viable reason to reach out to the disinfranchised etc.
Ignorance in the democrat party makes them ...[text shortened]... asting it out of their own eye. The only real question is, what happen to the two party system?
2. Carbon taxes will actually decrease global warming in a meaningful way hoax. [No, only a major transformation will decrease CO2 emissions in a meaningful way. Yet, what is clear is that the Earth is warming and that humans contribute.]
3. Raising taxes on the rich and the economy will magically improve, and government trickle down. [It will facilitate deficit reduction. I know it is a complicated concept for ignorant right-wingers but increased revenue lowers the budget deficit. And the phrase "government trickle down" is a genius Romney phrase and is apparently saying that things like driving the Nazis out of France or more recently landing the rover on Mars are government trickle down, for example.]
4. Talk of secession in America is merely used as a talking point instead of a viable reason to reach out to the disinfranchised etc. [The right-winger ignorantly attempts to make a distinction between 'talking point" and "reaching out".]
5. Ignorance in the democrat party makes them point to the beam in their neighbors eye before casting it out of their own eye.[The Republican right-winger should look in the mirror. Democrats are incredibly supported, fair, hard-workers, and strongly believe in equal opportunity.]
6. The only real question is, what happen to the two party system? [The answer is that the two-party system is here to stay for our lifetimes, and that freaks like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader will never become President. Lastly, the only way the ttrue and tradtiional Republicans can save their party is take it back from the evangelicals and freak tea partiers.]
It is strikingly clear that the current Republican Party plainly wins the ignorance award.
Further, what is more sad than the ignorance of the Republican rank-and-file is the Republican politician pandering to such ignorance.
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by spruce112358???????????????????????????????????????
Yeah, this one irks me.
If the President tries to do this, I would strongly support impeachment. It is the House that controls the purse strings -- that has to be made clear.
The proposal was:
Under the White House proposal, the president would have the power to raise the debt limit as needed.
Congress currently must pass legislation to hike the limit, but under Obama’s proposal lawmakers would only be able to pass a resolution disapproving of a debt limit increase by the president.
The president also would have the power to veto any resolution of disapproval, meaning two-thirds of Congress would have to disapprove of such an increase to block it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/270417-obama-debt-limit-proposal-would-ease-concerns-on-wall-street
Considering there wasn't even a debt limit until 1939 (http://www.ehow.com/about_6521656_history-federal-debt-limit.html), I fail to see what is so objectionable about it. Certainly if Congress accedes to the proposal, there is nothing "impeachable" about it.
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Bush had proposed this, you'd have been screaming "Dictator", "brown shirts", and every other paranoid left-wing fantasy you could think of.
???????????????????????????????????????
The proposal was:
Under the White House proposal, the president would have the power to raise the debt limit as needed.
Congress currently must pass legislation to hike the limit, but under Obama’s proposal lawmakers would only be able to pass a resolution disapproving of a debt limit increas ...[text shortened]... t it. Certainly if Congress accedes to the proposal, there is nothing "impeachable" about it.
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, of course Congress could grant that authority -- an unwise move, in my view, but they could.
???????????????????????????????????????
The proposal was:
Under the White House proposal, the president would have the power to raise the debt limit as needed.
Congress currently must pass legislation to hike the limit, but under Obama’s proposal lawmakers would only be able to pass a resolution disapproving of a debt limit increas ...[text shortened]... t it. Certainly if Congress accedes to the proposal, there is nothing "impeachable" about it.
What irked me was the suggestion that Obama should "ignore the debt limit and let the courts sort it out" which I read as a subtext in one article. But it seems that was actually a Clinton idea floating around at one point, not something this WH ever seriously considered.
So I'm not as irked. I'm sure you are all relieved about that, lol.
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672🙄🙄
If Bush had proposed this, you'd have been screaming "Dictator", "brown shirts", and every other paranoid left-wing fantasy you could think of.
Before the Tea Party came along, raising the debt ceiling was routine and uncontroversial. Before 1939, there was no such thing as a "debt ceiling". Were Presidents before then "dictators"?
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by spruce112358What irks me - and Obama is far from the first President to try this - is that he's trying to override the Constitution's checks and balances.
Yes, of course Congress could grant that authority -- an unwise move, in my view, but they could.
What irked me was the suggestion that Obama should "ignore the debt limit and let the courts sort it out" which I read as a subtext in one article. But it seems that was actually a Clinton idea floating around at one point, not something this WH ever seriously considered.
So I'm not as irked. I'm sure you are all relieved about that, lol.
07 Dec 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know as well as I do that our debt is at unsustainable levels. That's what makes this different. Not because it's Obama or a Democrat. This is starting to get to a dangerous level and you know it.
🙄🙄
Before the Tea Party came along, raising the debt ceiling was routine and uncontroversial. Before 1939, there was no such thing as a "debt ceiling". Were Presidents before then "dictators"?