US Debt Ceiling

BvBPL said:
I am off the opinion that US politics would be better if people were a bit less critical of the other side and more critical of the failures of their own side. Elected Democrats should rightly be held to task by their voters for not resolving the debt issue previously and not codifying Roe and Chevron. If you're a Floridian Republican, I don't know why you wouldn't be upset at how their governor is continually pushing for ideological laws that will inevitable be overturned by the courts (with the accompanying significant cost of defending those laws). Why any Republican voted for Paxton over Bush in 2022 for Texas AG is completely beyond me given the former has been under indictment for fraud for many years. You might think Racheal Rollins's heart is in the right place, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to her errors.

Just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't call out the errors on your own side. If anything, you have more ability to affect change by encouraging those you agree with to govern better than condemning the other side. If your teammates keep fouling the other side, they get more free throws.

--
As to relying on Amendment XIV for the debt, that's completely insane. Not only does it circumvent the existing political process (itself insane), the declaration that one is using it does not answer how those debts would be paid. The executive cannot raise taxes on its own for this purpose. Printing more money to pay a debt after a course of high inflation would be a terrible idea. And it's just anti-democratic.

Relying on Amendment XIV would tank the bond market. Investors would rightly be concerned about receiving real returns on future bond purchases because once XIV is invoked for this purpose once, the door gets opened to it being used again and again. The potential implication for future retirees would be massive, particularly as the US has moved towards employee-driven retirement plans.

--
For advocates of using Amendment XIV, I have two questions as to the legality of such an approach.

Firstly, what gives the Executive the authority to invoke XIV for this purpose when the power to enforce XIV is explicitly given to Congress?

Secondly, Amendment XIV assures the debt of the US that is authorized by law. We have a law authorizing $314 trillion in debt. How does one reconcile increasing the debt amount as authorized by an existing law without passing another law?
Click to expand...
Hiya!
 
BvBPL said:
Secondly, Amendment XIV assures the debt of the US that is authorized by law. We have a law authorizing $314 trillion in debt. How does one reconcile increasing the debt amount as authorized by an existing law without passing another law?
Click to expand...

The laws appropriating the spending that were ready passed is the answer

To use a TMIT-style argument, the debt ceiling law is facially unconstitutional and can be lawfully ignored by all concerned parties
 
Like Habeus Corpus, but with less precedent for ignoring it.
 
BvBPL said:
Just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't call out the errors on your own side. If anything, you have more ability to affect change by encouraging those you agree with to govern better than condemning the other side. If your teammates keep fouling the other side, they get more free throws.
Click to expand...
I am of this mindset as well. I oddly find myself most often debating people I largely agree with over points that I think "hurt the cause" - that cause being, IMO, pushing things *gradually but inevitably* to the Left from where they now stand. I know a lot of people, even on the Left, don't much care for Bill Maher, but I find myself agreeing with him that there's no real need for "us" to form up ranks & do nothing but tear into the other side (other than an occasional "we all still agree we don't want that stuff, right?" nod to each other). It doesn't really accomplish anything other than making everyone feel better about themselves. It's much more important to, as you say, get your team to stop fouling so much & giving the other team free throws.

It kinda sucks, in that I find myself "arguing" with people I really don't want to argue with because we agree on so much, but I also see it as important to do so.
 
RobAnybody said:
I am of this mindset as well. I oddly find myself most often debating people I largely agree with over points that I think "hurt the cause" - that cause being, IMO, pushing things *gradually but inevitably* to the Left from where they now stand. I know a lot of people, even on the Left, don't much care for Bill Maher, but I find myself agreeing with him that there's no real need for "us" to form up ranks & do nothing but tear into the other side (other than an occasional "we all still agree we don't want that stuff, right?" nod to each other). It doesn't really accomplish anything other than making everyone feel better about themselves. It's much more important to, as you say, get your team to stop fouling so much & giving the other team free throws.

It kinda sucks, in that I find myself "arguing" with people I really don't want to argue with because we agree on so much, but I also see it as important to do so.
Click to expand...

So you are the white moderate Dr. King wrote about, congratulations!
 
BvBPL said:
I am off the opinion that US politics would be better if people were a bit less critical of the other side and more critical of the failures of their own side. Elected Democrats should rightly be held to task by their voters for not resolving the debt issue previously and not codifying Roe and Chevron. If you're a Floridian Republican, I don't know why you wouldn't be upset at how their governor is continually pushing for ideological laws that will inevitable be overturned by the courts (with the accompanying significant cost of defending those laws). Why any Republican voted for Paxton over Bush in 2022 for Texas AG is completely beyond me given the former has been under indictment for fraud for many years. You might think Racheal Rollins's heart is in the right place, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to her errors.

Just because the other side is wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't call out the errors on your own side. If anything, you have more ability to affect change by encouraging those you agree with to govern better than condemning the other side. If your teammates keep fouling the other side, they get more free throws.

--
As to relying on Amendment XIV for the debt, that's completely insane. Not only does it circumvent the existing political process (itself insane), the declaration that one is using it does not answer how those debts would be paid. The executive cannot raise taxes on its own for this purpose. Printing more money to pay a debt after a course of high inflation would be a terrible idea. And it's just anti-democratic.

Relying on Amendment XIV would tank the bond market. Investors would rightly be concerned about receiving real returns on future bond purchases because once XIV is invoked for this purpose once, the door gets opened to it being used again and again. The potential implication for future retirees would be massive, particularly as the US has moved towards employee-driven retirement plans.

--
For advocates of using Amendment XIV, I have two questions as to the legality of such an approach.

Firstly, what gives the Executive the authority to invoke XIV for this purpose when the power to enforce XIV is explicitly given to Congress?

Secondly, Amendment XIV assures the debt of the US that is authorized by law. We have a law authorizing $314 trillion in debt. How does one reconcile increasing the debt amount as authorized by an existing law without passing another law?
Click to expand...
We the democrats do that too much already. In the end, people act on feelings, and being celebrated imperfect victories by the people not directly in the fight goes further than tear downs.

Also, not sure how “invoking” the “14th” would lead to an again and again that would hurt the bond market.

If the courts agree, the debt limit is toast and it doesn’t “get invoked” again. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t get invoked again.
 

US debt ceiling: Hard-line conservatives vow to derail deal​

Hard-line conservative Republicans have denounced a bipartisan deal to raise the US debt ceiling and avoid a national default. But President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy still believe they have the votes to pass a bill before the deadline. Here's how the drama is playing out on Capitol Hill and a guide to what comes next.
When it comes to raising the US debt ceiling and avoiding a national default, reaching a deal between the two parties was an uphill battle. But there are more steep hills to climb.
Now the two leaders - Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy - have to sell their weekend agreement to their members of Congress.
The deal introduces new federal spending limits and restrictions on low-income aid programmes in exchange for a debt-limit increase.

It became clear on Tuesday that this is not a deal that satisfies conservative hard-liners in the House of Representatives. The question is whether there are enough of them in the right spots to have their way.
At a press conference on the steps of the US Capitol on Tuesday, 11 members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus railed against what they viewed as insufficient spending cuts and budget limitations in the compromise legislation.

"This deal fails completely," said congressman Scott Perry, the leader of the group. He said those who stood with him "will be absolutely opposed to the deal and will do everything in our power to stop it".
Mr Perry and the other Republicans present did not reveal how many members of their group would vote against the deal, however. They also dodged when asked whether they would call for Mr McCarthy's removal - a step that would escalate the rift forming among Republicans in the House.
"No matter what happens, there's going to be a reckoning for what just occurred unless we stop this bill by tomorrow," congressman Chip Roy of Texas, another Freedom Caucus member, warned.

The best chance for firebrand conservatives to smother the compromise bill in its infancy may come on Tuesday evening, as the powerful House Rules Committee considers the terms by which the legislation will be debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives.
Mr Roy and two other members of the Freedom Caucus have seats on this committee, and if they vote with the four Democrats, they could force Mr Biden and Mr McCarthy back to the drawing board with the debt clock ticking down.
Mr Roy and congressman Ralph Norman, another Freedom Caucus member, have already said they plan to oppose the bill in committee.

That leaves congressman Thomas Massie as the pivotal vote. As the committee hearing unfolded, the Kentucky Republican said he is "anticipating" that he will approve the bill. If the remaining Republicans hold ranks, their yes votes would send the bill to the floor of the House.
It appears poised to be a process that stretches into Tuesday evening, however, as the rules committee will have to consider dozens of amendments and addendums to the negotiated deal, any of which - if approved - could sink the carefully calibrated balance agreed by Mr McCarthy and Mr Biden.
If the legislation emerges unscathed, however, these are the remaining steps necessary to end the debt-default crisis:
  • The House of Representatives would hold an up-or-down vote on the bill requiring a simple majority for approval, perhaps as early as Wednesday night
  • The Senate would then take up consideration of the bill. Approval there would require 60 votes out of the 100-member chamber. The process could move quickly, although individual senators could delay the proceedings if they choose
  • If an identical version of the debt agreement is approved by both the House and the Senate, the bill then is transmitted to Mr Biden for his signature
At the moment, rank-and-file members in both the House and Senate appear willing to fall in line.
There may be some defections from left-wing Democrats, who have complained about how the proposed budget cuts fall exclusively on social programmes and objected to the new work requirements on some recipients of low-income aid.
The Democratic hard-liners, however, have been less organised - and less vocal in their objections - than their conservative counterparts.

The Treasury has moved the day the US would hit its limit to Monday 5 June, and for the moment the financial markets appear to have calmed as a resolution appears in sight.
That could quickly change, however, if the multi-step process for approving the debt-limit agreement is derailed or otherwise blocked in the days ahead.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65759537
 
So, now, @Farm Boy and @Hygro, we'll see what we see.
I think the caginess about removing McCarthy might be an admission that they really have no one to replace him with.

RobAnybody said:
Which I guess makes you the people that got Bush Jr & Trump elected. Continue making The Perfect the enemy of The Good I suppose. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I was 9 when Bush Jr got elected and spent four weeks knocking doors in a swing state for Hillary but sure buddy
 
Lexicus said:
So, now, @Farm Boy and @Hygro, we'll see what we see.
I think the caginess about removing McCarthy might be an admission that they really have no one to replace him with.



I was 9 when Bush Jr got elected and spent four weeks knocking doors in a swing state for Hillary but sure buddy
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the true crazies are 100% of the party, they’re just more and more, and I don’t think their puppet masters are anything other than their own media fueled psychoses.
 
Hygro said:
I’m not saying the true crazies are 100% of the party, they’re just more and more, and I don’t think their puppet masters are anything other than their own media fueled psychoses.
Click to expand...

Then does the question not become what McCarthy will give away to get some Dems on board?
 
Is his position secure within his own party? If it is, yeah I guess so and you're right. If not, he has to figure out another way to get them to compromise, or take their mantel.
 
Hygro said:
Is his position secure within his own party? If it is, yeah I guess so and you're right. If not, he has to figure out another way to get them to compromise, or take their mantel.
Click to expand...

IIRC a single member can bring a motion to get rid of him, so perhaps my question encompasses Democratic votes to keep him Speaker too.
 
Wouldn't that be something. We're supposed to be entirely dysfunctional.
 
I suspect that the Dems are not able to use the one member power to challenge his role as speaker.
 
Birdjaguar said:
I suspect that the Dems are not able to use the one member power to challenge his role as speaker.
Click to expand...

What would be the point of a Democrat doing so? Most of the Dems are probably fine with McCarthy's deal. Their best move would be to try to extract substantive concessions on the deal itself in exchange for their votes, if their votes are needed to pass the deal. Removing McCarthy at this stage, afaict, would accomplish nothing other than virtually ensuring a default.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Klaus Hergersheimer
Drugs and the US market
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
2K
Hygro
Hygro
warpus
Painting, wallpapering, etc
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Deportation: Millions must go!
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
4K
Cutlass
C
danjuno
Jimmy Carter Dies at 100
Replies
14
Views
655
Takhisis
Takhisis
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Can a Marxist revolutionary get elected president and sort out the economy?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
5K
Samson
Samson
Top Bottom