Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
@Mobboss
No budget presented so far can approach closing the deficit. They only reduce the constant level to about (500-700 billion) per year. We're still ________.
Truth vs Propaganda in the Debt Ceiling deal
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
No budget presented so far can approach closing the deficit. They only reduce the constant level to about (500-700 billion) per year. We're still ________.
In what way?
You know I don't really understand why everyone is making a big deal out of this whole debt ceiling issue. I mean if nothing gets passed at all Obama is just going to fall back on the Constitution.
Bolded the important points
As the expenditures which will put us over the debt limit have already been authorized by law this statement authorizes the US to in effect pre-authorize themselves to bust the debt limit to meet its obligations which have already been authorized by Congress and the President. After the debt limit is reached and past anything that costs money which is signed into law would once again be authorized against that growing debt without any risk of default.
Line 1 Section 4 Amendment 14 US Constitution said:
Bolded the important points
As the expenditures which will put us over the debt limit have already been authorized by law this statement authorizes the US to in effect pre-authorize themselves to bust the debt limit to meet its obligations which have already been authorized by Congress and the President. After the debt limit is reached and past anything that costs money which is signed into law would once again be authorized against that growing debt without any risk of default.
I don't think it's that simple. Congress must pass all tax and spending laws. Now you could make the case that Obama could just keep borrowing despite the debt ceiling and make a Constitutional case out of it. But whether he can in practice is another story. And, it doesn't solve the problems in the longer term.
I'm beginning to think that the Treasury should just anounce that if the debt ceiling is not raised, no Social Security checks get mailed, and anyone who doesn't like it gets the list of phone numbers for all the House Republicans.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
The debt limit is when the government starts to curtail services to reduce debt growth, ostensibly (Defunding current departments, restricting future legislation, etc).
deanej
Deity
But not the most important point: authorized by law. If the debt ceiling is not raised, such debt would not be authorized by law, and could (and would) be questioned.
Exactly the way the big corporations want it. I'm all in favor of lowing the corporate tax rate as long as the loopholes are closed.
Technically yes you are right they wouldn't be authorizing the debt increase but Congress has already authorized that which will make us reach and exceed the debt limit. The Constitution simply says that all debt authorized by law will not be questioned and this debt has already been approved by Congress in various appropriations bills.
deanej
Deity
They approved the budget. But not the amount of debt necessary to implement it.
They probably never thought it would be an issue. I do love how the Republicans are plotting to trick Obama into getting exactly what he wants.
They probably never thought it would be an issue. I do love how the Republicans are plotting to trick Obama into getting exactly what he wants.
I'm sure it could be argued successfully by Constitutional and financial lawyers that to approve one would imply approval of the other. As it is necessary to approve of the second item if the first will obviously put us over.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I'll go for hikes that roll back tax cuts for everyone to what they were before Bush cut it. Everyone, not just some people. Otherwise its just people saying raise everyone else's taxes except mine.
Moderator Action: The following quotes from this thread are an example of my concerns over good discussion topics not being RD. I think that the thread is diminished by them and folks have to wade through them to find the interesting stuff.
Our discussions in staff about this are about our choices:
Do nothing, let ruined threads run
Lock it
Make it RD
Infract the bad posts.
Our discussions in staff about this are about our choices:
Do nothing, let ruined threads run
Lock it
Make it RD
Infract the bad posts.
Well there's been something trickling down from the rich on to the rest of us, but it's yellow and it doesn't taste very good.
TANSTAAFL
So even though that means that you will make everyone worse off, you think that you can claim that you won't?
No ones talking about 'gutting it' either.
See above 'cause you just did it again.
aelf
Ashen One
Well, I for one disagree that my remark...
...diminishes the potential for good discussion. It's an important question for people who support the free market - without a free labour market, it would seem that whatever 'free market' exists is built on the backs of workers who have radically limited choices. Therefore it's questionable how free such a market is.
So I suppose this proves the point that you as a mod shouldn't be dictating what is the standard for good discussion, at least not to such an extent.
...diminishes the potential for good discussion. It's an important question for people who support the free market - without a free labour market, it would seem that whatever 'free market' exists is built on the backs of workers who have radically limited choices. Therefore it's questionable how free such a market is.
So I suppose this proves the point that you as a mod shouldn't be dictating what is the standard for good discussion, at least not to such an extent.
Nothing here has anything to do with freedom on the market. Freedom is, literally, the ability to buy and sell my goods, labor, whatever under agreed-upon terms. That your working-class steelworker is severely limited in his alternatives (e.g., by education, productivity, etc.) is an issue of scarcity, not freedom.
Look at me! By ignoring certain sets of data and only paying attention to other sets of data, I can make graphs that only support my pre-established views!
Granted, you're by no means the only person who does that, lots of people on all sides of the political spectrum do that, but it doesn't make you any more right.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,730
Then in an effort to resuscitate, I'll pose an involved question, basically to anyone who cares to address it or attack its premises. I think it directly falls under the thread title. In keeping with the moderation, I guess one liners will be viewed by me as concessions of the point.
Social Security is supposedly independent of the budget, and solvent for the moment. Accepting these, I don't understand why, then, Social Security recipients are being advertised as the first to suffer. A budget it supposedly has nothing to do with is now running dry; why is Social Security even entering in this debate? Why are all the local papers now running stories about terrified Social Security recipients clinging to their dialysis machines (example)? What about all the complex and obscure bureaucracies that carry out other operations? What about defense, regulatory agencies, R&D, and projects? Why are these checks (ahem, the supposedly independent checks) the front line?
There are only two possibilities: either this is publicity to get these House phones you mention ringing early simply by threatening people very loudly and emotionally, or Social Security's independence is a longstanding lie— a total, inexcusable falsehood that has been played to each succeeding generation by the former for years. I don't see any other possible causes for this bizarre scene than these. If it's the former, tsk tsk, that's very shameless and greedy of congress and the President. If it's the latter, than we should have enacted some privatization in 2005... if only for the sake of preventing the government looting the program!
Can anyone make an honest moral case for this behavior? I mean, do you think looting SS is right if there is no debt expansion? There's literally nothing else to do? The checks will have to stop?
pretty sure I tried to cover why I ignored what I did, so go ahead and argue why my reasoning is insufficient/false, or just keep wasting space.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of SS is that taxes don't go to a trust fund; they are immediately diverted to other uses and spent on something else. They certainly aren't invested and locked up as they would be in a private fund. The "trust fund" consists solely of IOUs, and IOUs obviously are not assets.
Similar threads
