• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Bypassing Congress on Debt Limit is 'Crazy Talk'

MrVicchio said:
So we have to cut the budget CAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD THE SPENDING! What a ****ing concept!
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't answer the question. Where do you suggest we find 33% of our budget to cut in the next month?
 
MrVicchio said:
So Obama has the choice of usurping powers and raising the debt limit himself thus breaking the law and the Constitution or cutting spending POST debt and being in violation of the law...

Since he's been President for 2.5 years, sounds like his incompetence has finally caught up with him!
Click to expand...

I'm racking my brain trying to figure out how your last sentence even remotely relates to your first sentence, but I've got nothing. I guess trying to figure out the logic behind your foaming-at-the-mouth rants is a lost cause. :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
:roll:
If it's just a "left wing lunacy" fear tactic, then surely you should have no problem clearly articulating which parts of the government WILL be cut. And don't forget, we're talking about cuts that will take effect next month, not long-term chronic problems that you think need to be fixed. So let's see your budget plan for which of our obligations we SHOULD suddenly stop paying.

We're going to need to reduce spending 33% next month if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and if Obama chooses not to ignore it anyway. So if defaulting on our debts is an option that's off the table for you, please tell me which parts of our budget you want to slash in the next four weeks to balance the budget. (Hint: Shutting down all non-defense discretionary spending won't get you there.)
Click to expand...

It just amazes me how quickly many liberals around here support abolishment of the US Constitution in favor of partisan ideology.

It’s a really simple concept if you bother to “think” about the issues rather than “feel” about the issues. Life would be wonderful if the federal government could provide everyone with all of our wants and desires but there isn’t enough money in the world for that and history shows us that such attempts to create such governments result in tyranny and oppression rather than the utopian society originally sought.

First let me state once again, there are no conflicting laws at hand. That is a red herring fallacy.

Second, in answer to your question Kandahar, if Aug. 2 comes and goes without an agreement, the government will begin to shut down just as it did under Bill Clinton when he vetoed the spending bill congress sent to him.
LINK


It is important to understand that the government won’t suddenly run out of money. It will still be receiving revenue but its outlays will exceed its receipts. If an agreement hasn’t been reached by Aug. 2nd, the President will be forced to shut down all non-essential services.

If the standoff continues, the President will be forced to direct the Treasury to stop paying for specific federal services that aren’t traditionally considered “non-essential”. These would include agencies such as the FDA, EPA, HHS, HUD, USDA, USACE, DHS, BLM, CDC, CBO, CPSC, DOC, ED, DOE, DOJ, DOL, DOT etc. This is not a complete list. For an A-Z list of federal departments agencies, click here.


In summary, the President does not have the authority to direct the Treasury to borrow more money (increase debt limit), the Treasury is required to make good on the public debt but there is no requirement that the Treasury continue to pay federal departments agencies as evidenced from previous government shutdowns.

My point is not intended to say that a government shutdown won’t be catastrophic to our economy but it is intended to point out that government shutdowns have occurred in the past and no president or treasurer, until now, has ever suggested that the constitution be twisted to allow the President to increase borrowing on his own. To support such an idea is an absolute affront to the US Constitution and the rule of law in the United States. Or, as Sen. Cornyn said, “crazy talk”.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
:lamo
Yep, it's an "Allensky tactic" (whatever that means) to call you out on your bull**** and actually make you state where you think the government can find 33% of its budget to cut in the next four weeks.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this “33%” number from?
 
GPS_Flex said:
It just amazes me how quickly many liberals around here support abolishment of the US Constitution in favor of partisan ideology.

It’s a really simple concept if you bother to “think” about the issues rather than “feel” about the issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, so let's "think" about the mathematical reality of our budget, rather than "feel" what you imagine liberals believe.

First let me state once again, there are no conflicting laws at hand. That is a red herring fallacy.
Click to expand...

It is a law that we spend $X on this and $Y on that. It is also a law that we can't borrow to pay for them. Both laws cannot be followed simultaneously.

Second, in answer to your question Kandahar, if Aug. 2 comes and goes without an agreement, the government will begin to shut down just as it did under Bill Clinton when he vetoed the spending bill congress sent to him.
LINK

It is important to understand that the government won’t suddenly run out of money. It will still be receiving revenue but its outlays will exceed its receipts. If an agreement hasn’t been reached by Aug. 2nd, the President will be forced to shut down all non-essential services.
Click to expand...

I wish it were that simple, but that's not the case. When the government "shut down" before, the majority of federal spending actually continued. We continued paying the debt, we continued paying entitlements, we continued paying for defense, and we continued paying other discretionary services deemed "essential." If the government does not raise the debt ceiling, those kind of cuts will simply not be sufficient to cover the shortfall. We would need to cut 33% (EDIT: My bad, actually 43%) of all spending, effective immediately. Here's what our federal government spends its money on:

Defense: 25%
Health care (Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Administration): 23%
Social security / other pensions: 21%
Debt interest: 5% (although this will surely rise if the debt ceiling isn't raised)
Everything else: 26%

The bolded part includes everything that was affected by the previous shutdown...and only SOME of the spending within the bolded part was halted. So let's assume that we once again halt all "non-essential" discretionary spending if the debt ceiling isn't raised. That would be maybe 20% of federal spending. Sorry, that's not good enough. We would STILL have a shortfall, and spending would inevitably be affected in areas that ARE deemed essential.

If the standoff continues, the President will be forced to direct the Treasury to stop paying for specific federal services that aren’t traditionally considered “non-essential”. These would include agencies such as the FDA, EPA, HHS, HUD, USDA, USACE, DHS, BLM, CDC, CBO, CPSC, DOC, ED, DOE, DOJ, DOL, DOT etc. This is not a complete list. For an A-Z list of federal departments agencies, click here.
Click to expand...

Every single one of those agencies is included within the bolded section above. That's not enough.

In summary, the President does not have the authority to direct the Treasury to borrow more money (increase debt limit), the Treasury is required to make good on the public debt but there is no requirement that the Treasury continue to pay federal departments agencies as evidenced from previous government shutdowns.
Click to expand...

The difference is that previous shutdowns were standoffs over BUDGET allocations, not the debt ceiling. In previous cases, the government shut down because Congress had not authorized any spending (i.e. it had failed to pass a budget). That isn't the case this time around...Congress ALREADY authorized the spending, and has simply tied Treasury's hands in its ability to actually pay for it. So yes, there IS a requirement that the Treasury continue to pay federal agencies in accordance with the 2011 federal budget, and there's no particular reason why THAT requirement should take a back seat to the debt ceiling requirement. Both are the law of the land.

My point is not intended to say that a government shutdown won’t be catastrophic to our economy but it is intended to point out that government shutdowns have occurred in the past and no president or treasurer, until now, has ever suggested that the constitution be twisted to allow the President to increase borrowing on his own. To support such an idea is an absolute affront to the US Constitution and the rule of law in the United States. Or, as Sen. Cornyn said, “crazy talk”.
Click to expand...

Previous government shutdowns were a fundamentally different animal from this one, because A) most of the government spending continued under previous shutdowns, B) Congress hadn't passed mutually contradictory laws, and C) the standoff was over a different issue.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Where do you get this “33%” number from?
Click to expand...

That's the current proportion of our federal expenditures that are not funded by taxes, and would therefore need to be halted immediately once we hit the debt ceiling.

EDIT: Oops, actually it's 43%, making it even MORE unfeasible to actually pare down our spending in the next four weeks and stay beneath the current debt ceiling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed
 
Last edited:
You can't even stay beneath the current debt ceiling level. I don't think it'd be possible since we already hit it months ago, and the only way it is making it right now is by transferring accounts and other quick fixes.
 
I honestly don't care what arguement is presented. The President does NOT have the authority to raise the debt ceiling. Only Congress has that authority. The 14th Amendment was never meant to be applied thusly.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I honestly don't care what arguement is presented. The President does NOT have the authority to raise the debt ceiling. Only Congress has that authority. The 14th Amendment was never meant to be applied thusly.
Click to expand...

The president ALSO doesn't have the authority to stop funding programs and agencies which the law mandates that he fund. So he doesn't have any choice but to violate one law or the other. By not raising the debt ceiling, Congress will essentially FORCE him to prioritize which of their laws should be enforced and which should not.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The president ALSO doesn't have the authority to stop funding programs and agencies which the law mandates that he fund. So he doesn't have any choice but to violate one law or the other. By not raising the debt ceiling, Congress will essentially FORCE him to prioritize which of their laws should be enforced and which should not.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't fund anything. Congress does. If the President doesn't get the funds from Congress then they are the ones that are at fault, not the President.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The President doesn't fund anything. Congress does.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Congress allocates the money (which they already did, last April). The Treasury Department, which answers to the president, actually collects and doles out money to the various programs and agencies.

If the President doesn't get the funds from Congress then they are the ones that are at fault, not the President.
Click to expand...

The funds come from the Treasury; no money ever passes through Congress' hands except for their personal salaries.
 
Kandahar said:
Incorrect. Congress allocates the money (which they already did, last April). The Treasury Department, which answers to the president, actually collects and doles out money to the various programs and agencies.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you. It is Congress that authorizes borrowing and sets the taxes which the IRS and Treasury Department collects and doles out under the guidence of the President. If Congress does not do this then, again, it is Congress that is at fault. Not the President.

Kandahar said:
The funds come from the Treasury; no money ever passes through Congress' hands except for their personal salaries.
Click to expand...

The authority to collect/get the funds comes from Congress.
 
danarhea said:
Not paying our bills is what is an affront to the 14th Amendment. Being deadbeats is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect.

14th Amendment said:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Click to expand...


there is your purpose of the 14th Amendment. Debt instruments. Not "the bills". The Supreme Court already handled this issue in 1935 (when we defaulted under FDR), and specifically stated that debt came from Congressional Authorization. The Government is not constitutionally mandated to pay for park services, UN Dues, military spending, or the entitlements - these are simply bills that are "binding on the conscience of the sovereign" Congress has allotted enough spending and borrowing to cover the debt; and Constitutionally that is first priority. In the meantime, in the showdown between the House and the President, our system will work as it is supposed to - and force some measure of compromise/deal making. That's sort of the point of the "power of the purse" in the separation of powers. The Government will just have to cut other things in the meantime, if we get to that point. Instant Balanced Budget.



This whole thing is a ridiculous trial balloon by an increasingly frustrated and desperate administration. It will fare no better than when they floated the idea that Nancy Pelosi could just "deem" Obamacare to have passed.
 
Last edited:
So you think the government can just cut things in the next month and the debt ceiling issue will be fine?
 
nope, i think it will continue to be a huge mounting problem.



it just won't be the end of the world, as some are painting. we have cut larger percentages of public spending before (post-WWII, for example) and seem to have survived.
 
cpwill said:
nope, i think it will continue to be a huge mounting problem.



it just won't be the end of the world, as some are painting. we have cut larger percentages of public spending before (post-WWII, for example) and seem to have survived.
Click to expand...

Do you mean making harsh cuts or not raising the debt ceiling? And public spending in that respect was mainly focused on military, and it didn't cut that dramatically since hundreds of billions went to rebuild western europe too.
 
Kandahar said:
The president ALSO doesn't have the authority to stop funding programs and agencies which the law mandates that he fund.
Click to expand...

Sure he does. "fund the program at X level" doesn't require that it be funded at that level in a given time period; and should the funds not be appropriated, it's hardly as if Congress could sue him for their failure to do so. It's not as if anything happened to Congressional Democrats when they (illegally) failed to pass a Budget.

Debt is authorized only by Congress. If Congress decides to spend X amount and then later decides not to raise X amount, then the latter decision overrides the first.


as a side note, it's also worth pointing out that the tradition of Presidents refusing to spend monies appropriated and allocated by Congress goes all the way back to Jefferson.
 
Gargantuan said:
Do you mean making harsh cuts or not raising the debt ceiling?
Click to expand...

not raising the debt ceiling means a sharp reduction in current spending. Our budget is immediately balanced to revenues, which would mark a cut in expenditures of about 40%. We can take and make alot of temporary fixes to push out what we can save from what, but it would get very serious very fast.

And public spending in that respect was mainly focused on military, and it didn't cut that dramatically since hundreds of billions went to rebuild western europe too.
Click to expand...

Between 1945 and 1948, Government expenditures were cut by about 66%. I'd call that pretty significant.

figure-12.png
 
Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ...
Click to expand...
delighted Obama is a Constitutional scholar who can defend his need to apply this provision of the Constitution if the congress is foolish enough to place us on the brink of default
 
justabubba said:
delighted Obama is a Constitutional scholar who can defend his need to apply this provision of the Constitution if the congress is foolish enough to place us on the brink of default
Click to expand...

Read the next section....

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

Now...show me where in the 14th Amendment does it even mention the President.
 
justabubba said:
delighted Obama is a Constitutional scholar who can defend his need to apply this provision of the Constitution if the congress is foolish enough to place us on the brink of default
Click to expand...

Let him try it....Seems you prefer a dictator over the will of the people.

j-mac
 
Kal'Stang said:
Read the next section....



Now...show me where in the 14th Amendment does it even mention the President.
Click to expand...

show me where the president is excluded
had the seat of government needed to have been defined, it would have been
 
j-mac said:
Let him try it....Seems you prefer a dictator over the will of the people.

j-mac
Click to expand...

please explain how acting on the authority vested by the Constitution causes the president to then be found a dictator
 
Obama is not serious. He wants it his way or no way that does not work

McConnell rallies, invites Obama to Hill again - On Congress - POLITICO.com

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor Tuesday to again invite President Barack Obama to the Hill to hash out a deal on the debt ceiling debate. McConnell made the same request last Thursday, but the White House brushed off the invite.

“I think the best way to solve this impasse is for the president to hear what needs to be done, and how we can do it — hear what can actually pass here in Congress,” McConnell said Tuesday. “He needs to understand the principle at stake here from our point of view.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom