01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell that's some nice word-smithing, but you know that's not the intent of the amendment. That Congress has limited the amount of debt does not draw into question the validity of the debt that has been authorized by law. What it really says is that paying the public debts takes priority over other spending.
Who says its "unconstitutional"? Last I checked, the 14th Amendment, Section 4 hasn't been repealed.
Congress has made appropriations but refused to fund them IF they don't raise the debt ceiling. That's AFTER the last election. Given these contradictory commands, there is a perfectly reasonable constitutional argument for executive act ...[text shortened]... ew debt sufficient to pay the government's bills as they come due.
(Emphasis supplied)
Obama's lawyers apparently thought it through, but it wouldn't surprise me for Obama to try these shenanigans anyway if this thing doesn't pass the House. (The vote is occurring right now btw.)
EDIT: Well it passed easily, so no impeachment hearings necessary, oh well. Gabby Giffords showed up right in the middle of the vote too, which was very cool.
01 Aug 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt's a moot point now but I don't agree with your predictably cramped reading of the Constitutional text. Prof. Balkin's argument that there are ways that the "validity of the public debt" can be "questioned" other than by outright refusal to pay existing debt makes more sense.
Well that's some nice word-smithing, but you know that's not the intent of the amendment. That Congress has limited the amount of debt does not draw into question the validity of the debt that has been authorized by law. What it really says is that paying the public debts takes priority over other spending.
Obama's lawyers apparently tho ...[text shortened]... h well. Gabby Giffords showed up right in the middle of the vote too, which was very cool.
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, I think it's just more convenient.
It's a moot point now but I don't agree with your predictably cramped reading of the Constitutional text. Prof. Balkin's argument that there are ways that the "validity of the public debt" can be "questioned" other than by outright refusal to pay existing debt makes more sense.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by bbarrOh, but the Republicans will be responsible next time. Right? Really they will! They'll put the interests of the country before their ideology and their reelection chances. And they'll keep an open mind.
Yeah, I've already written my senators to tell them to vote against this bill and force Obama to actually use the power at this disposal to avoid being held hostage by the Tea Party caucus. Jesus, what does it take for a Democrat to grow a spine?
Right?
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooThe people in the tea party thought they were being responsible, don't you get it? They see the huge government debt as horribly irresponsible. A terrible legacy for this generation to leave for the next. Thomas Paine said in common sense, "As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure anything which we may bequeath to posterity; and by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully."
Oh, but the Republicans will be responsible next time. Right? Really they will! They'll put the interests of the country before their ideology and their reelection chances. And they'll keep an open mind.
Right?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by dryhumpOkay, substitute "sane" for "responsible"
The people in the tea party thought they were being responsible, don't you get it? They see the huge government debt as horribly irresponsible. A terrible legacy for this generation to leave for the next. Thomas Paine said in common sense, "As parents, we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently lasting to ensure anything wh ...[text shortened]... ration into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully."
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76Obama has set himself up for the re-election campaign.
I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/125671/president-obamas-epic-debt-fail/
Now, I don't blame Obama for this loss. I actually admire him for putting the good of the country ahead of politics for the moment.
His problem, of course, was th ...[text shortened]... rol. The rest of the budget deficit can be picked off at leisure when the economy recovers.
That's all this has ever been about. He's going to campaign on getting rid of the tax cut for the super wealthy. And he'll win because of it. The republicans have only made his point stronger by saying the debt is too high.
The american public is now aware of it and over 60% now think generating income from taxing the super rich is a fair way to go now that 2.5 trillion in spending has been cut.
4 more years for Obama. Well done.
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76This kind of deal was only beneficial to a few politicians who can breath easy until the next time we reach the debt ceiling.
I think that, though the Tea Party no doubt wanted greater spending cuts, this "compromise" is a clear win for the GOP.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/125671/president-obamas-epic-debt-fail/
Now, I don't blame Obama for this loss. I actually admire him for putting the good of the country ahead of politics for the moment.
His problem, of course, was th ...[text shortened]... rol. The rest of the budget deficit can be picked off at leisure when the economy recovers.
The actual budget cuts, those which happen before the next election are miniscule, in the order of a rounding error. When a new Congress looks at the budget next year, they are under no obligation to go along with the rest of this kooky deal.
The real 800# gorilla in the budget process is base line budgeting, which presumes about 8% increase in line items every year. Thus a 5% spending increase is called a 3% cut. It is how, even if the cuts take place, the debt goes up by $7 trillion, if not more in actuality.
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by badmoonI don't know about the GOP. In the Bush tax cuts, the wealthy got the smallest percentage reduction, so the tax code became more not less progressive.
One thing is clear, the ONLY cause that the GOP has is don't tax the wealthy. Its the only card in their deck.
The extremely wealthy don't pay taxes, unless they are earning income. The very productive who earn large incomes are already paying the majority of the taxes. To expect them to pay more is simply ugly class warfare, which has divided and ruined more than one prosperous nation or empire.
How about that the poor and middle class pay their fair share? I happen to be in that group.
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by Kunsoo[continued from above post]
There are some progressives claiming victory. Not many, but this one from TPM is among them.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/another_take_5.php?ref=fpblg
Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected ...[text shortened]... ent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?
The fact that there are cuts? If people don't like that, why in God's name didn't they turn out to vote and bring back our Congressional majority? Once these nut jobs were in there, it was inevitable that this crap was going to happen. Whether or not it is advisable to cut spending, what exactly was going to stop this from happening? My experience is that the primary factor in all negotiations are the facts on the ground. The complaints center on a ridiculous notion that if the President had only said "no" harder, that these guys would have caved in. This isn't negotiating over who gets the side of the bed near the A/C. This is a complex matter involving 3,000 members and staffers. Negotiations in these situations don't work like this. That's why I'm irked by the constant parade of people comparing the negotiations to movies and card games. These comparisons obscure more than they reveal.
03 Aug 11
Let's see:
Obama gets a huge debt limit increase, enough to easily get the US past the next election.
The trigger to lower spending ensures that a majority of the cuts will come from the Military. (Half of cuts from military and rest can be spread across the budget)
Military cuts and no need to worry about debt for the rest of his term!
A real win-win for Obama.
Oh yeah and no tax hikes, a real win-win for the very rich.
Business as usual.