• 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'

GPS_Flex said:
This is basically true but pretty simplistic considering there is a difference between debt and spending.
Click to expand...

The money was already allocated by law. This is not new spending we are talking about.
 
danarhea said:
The money was already allocated by law. This is not new spending we are talking about.
Click to expand...

He actually brought up a good point.
The 14th amendment only says public debt should be honored and not internal spending programs.

In that sense, the president has the duty to pay all debts first, before anything else.
 
Kandahar said:
Congress has authorized $X in spending and $Y in taxes, then prohibited any borrowing to finance the difference. There is no particular reason why one of these laws (the debt ceiling) should take precedence over the other (the federal budget).
Click to expand...

Congress hasn't prohibited any borrowing. They just haven't approved any bills that allow borrowing. There is a difference.
 
Kandahar said:
Congress has authorized $X in spending and $Y in taxes, then prohibited any borrowing to finance the difference. There is no particular reason why one of these laws (the debt ceiling) should take precedence over the other (the federal budget).
Click to expand...

Like I said, just because money was authorized to be spent doesn’t mean it is debt that the 14th Amendment requires us to pay.

Funding of the EPA, DOE, FDA, IRS, ACF, AOA, USDA etc. could be stopped as well as countless other federal programs.

It would still put us into an economic tailspin but that would be the Presidents only available course of action (see previous government shutdowns).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So he could, raise taxes or confiscate property as well?
Click to expand...

No, the president doesn't have those powers. But he does have the power to direct the actions of the Treasury Department.

The president cannot impound spending, title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents such an act.
The only option he has is to divide the funds in mathematical proportion.
Click to expand...

That *IS* impounding spending. Nothing in that legislation calls for dividing funds in mathematical proportion...nor have you explained what proportion you're actually referring to. Are you saying that funds should be proportionally allocated so that the government remains in full compliance with the debt ceiling? Or are you saying that the government should exceed the debt ceiling and underfund the budget by equal dollar amounts? At what level should the funds be slashed (e.g. does the Department of Interior get a 33% cut across the board to be spent however they like, or do each of their programs get cut 33%)?

There is no clear-cut legal precedent or constitutional interpretation of how a situation like this should be handled, and the "equal proportion" argument is nothing more than your opinion as far as I can tell.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He actually brought up a good point.
The 14th amendment only says public debt should be honored and not internal spending programs.

In that sense, the president has the duty to pay all debts first, before anything else.
Click to expand...

The 14th also states this...

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

No where in the 14th does it give the power to the President when it comes to money.
 
danarhea said:
The money was already allocated by law. This is not new spending we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Like I already said, just because money was authorized to be spent doesn’t mean it is debt that the 14th Amendment requires us to pay.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He actually brought up a good point.
The 14th amendment only says public debt should be honored and not internal spending programs.

In that sense, the president has the duty to pay all debts first, before anything else.
Click to expand...

Of course then you run into the legal minefield of what qualifies as "debt." Is social security debt? It's an obligation to which people paid in with the expectation of getting their money back, but I think most of us don't consider it a "debt" the same way that we consider a bond to be debt. But I'm hard-pressed to see any meaningful distinction between the two. What makes our obligations to bondholders more important than our obligations to pensioners, or vice versa?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
No, the president doesn't have those powers. But he does have the power to direct the actions of the Treasury Department.
Click to expand...

Of course.
he could always inflate the hell out of the currency.

Kandahar said:
That *IS* impounding spending. Nothing in that legislation calls for dividing funds in mathematical proportion...nor have you explained what proportion you're actually referring to. Are you saying that funds should be proportionally allocated so that the government remains in full compliance with the debt ceiling? Or are you saying that the government should exceed the debt ceiling and underfund the budget by equal dollar amounts? At what level should the funds be slashed (e.g. does the Department of Interior get a 33% cut across the board to be spent however they like, or do each of their programs get cut 33%)?

There is no clear-cut legal precedent or constitutional interpretation of how a situation like this should be handled, and the "equal proportion" argument is nothing more than your opinion as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Impounding spend is defunding certain things he doesn't like.
If he reduces all spending, on all programs proportionally, to meet the debt ceiling, it wouldn't count as impounding as he is not defunding certain programs.

Although in light of GPS's point, he doesn't have to pay those necessarily, if debt is considered a higher priority, as the 14th alludes to.
 
Kandahar said:
Of course then you run into the legal minefield of what qualifies as "debt." Is social security debt? It's an obligation to which people paid in with the expectation of getting their money back, but I think most of us don't consider it a "debt" the same way that we consider a bond to be debt. But I'm hard-pressed to see any meaningful distinction between the two. What makes our obligations to bondholders more important than our obligations to pensioners, or vice versa?
Click to expand...

The bonds for SS are debt.

The endowment of the arts and Medicare are not.
 
Kandahar said:
What's your point? Contradictory laws now exist on the books, so the president cannot enforce them all simultaneously. Whether or not they bear his signature has no relevance to this simple principle of logic.
Click to expand...

Which means he should enforce the law he signed and if he signed contradicting laws he's obvioulsy retarded and not fit to be president...which is what I think anyway.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree. So Congress should get to work on repealing the debt ceiling entirely so that Obama (or any other president) isn't able to prioritize from among conflicting laws.
Click to expand...

Or...now this is gonna be radical of me, but bear with me...or they could actually control their spending and don't spend money they don't have. I know that was way out in left field of me...no pun intended.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Which means he should enforce the law he signed and if he signed contradicting laws he's obvioulsy retarded and not fit to be president...which is what I think anyway.
Click to expand...

If contradictory federals laws exist, the correct way to handle it is to abide by the most recent law.

Also, on an unrelated point, if you knew anyone with special needs, you might not be so quick to use such vulgar, despicable language.
 
Guy Incognito said:
If contradictory federals laws exist, the correct way to handle it is to abide by the most recent law.

Also, on an unrelated point, if you knew anyone with special needs, you might not be so quick to use such vulgar, despicable language.
Click to expand...

I do know a few and they prefer that I not change what and I say and who I am because I do know them...they've called me retarded themselves a few times.
 
Guy Incognito said:
If contradictory federals laws exist, the correct way to handle it is to abide by the most recent law.

Also, on an unrelated point, if you knew anyone with special needs, you might not be so quick to use such vulgar, despicable language.
Click to expand...

This is correct. In actuality, though no one has realized it, the 14th really doesn't (need to) come into the matter. The most recent law is the budget, and this is the law he must enforce. If the Congress and President want a debt ceiling, it must be passed after the budget. Of course, without specific cuts or revenues being also a part of such a law, it would be an obviously incoherent piece of legislation, for which all Americans should vote out anyone who voted for or signed it. Luckily, we are, as already pointed out, in the reverse situation where the debt ceiling law is nullified by the budget law.
 
Chappy said:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.” — The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution​

What's ‘crazy talk’ is Republicans suggesting that the U.S. defaulting on its obligations isn't a ‘big deal.’

If President Obama does his duty, ignores the unconstitutional debt ceiling and continues to meet our past obligations per the Constitutional requirement, the Republican-controlled U.S. House will most assuredly impeach him. But, of course, they were looking for an excuse for that all along.
Click to expand...

You need education on the issue.

Even if Congress refused to pay debts already authorized — which no one is suggesting — the president could not provide a remedy. As the Perry plurality also stated, Congress has no duty to provide a remedy: “While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign [emphasis added].”

Obligations “binding on the conscience” are also recognized by Article VI of the Constitution. It obligates the payment of “All Debts” incurred under the Confederation. Nevertheless, both that provision and Section 4 rely on Congress’s power “to borrow money on credit of the United States” (Article I, Section 8).

The struggle between House Republicans, who insist on spending cuts, and the president, who advocates higher taxes, simply exemplifies our separation-of-powers system in action. By design, the system usually forces resolutions of policy conflicts through some kind of compromise. And if the president and Congress fail to reach an agreement, the Constitution has not left the president powerless. As Senator Toomey insists, the Treasury can easily pay interest to bondholders first. The remaining funds would cover about two-thirds of the budget, and the president would simply be forced to make drastic cuts because he lacked money to pay all the bills.
Click to expand...
Obama
 
danarhea said:
Not paying our bills is what is an affront to the 14th Amendment. Being deadbeats is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No one is implying not paying our debts, this is left wing lunacy talk, geared to give cover to Obama and the Dems and attack the GOP. It's aimed squarely at peopel that have no tally or clue about the Constitution or the issue at hand.
 
MrVicchio said:
No one is implying not paying our debts, this is left wing lunacy talk, geared to give cover to Obama and the Dems and attack the GOP. It's aimed squarely at peopel that have no tally or clue about the Constitution or the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

: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.)
 
Last edited:
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...


I think using this kind of Allensky tactic in talking about the problem is deplorable. Most people really don't have a real grasp on not only how vast government spending is, but haven't given, nor have the time to invest going line by line. That is why we elect representatives who's sole job is to do these things on our behalf.

Now, if you are trying to say that anyone who doesn't have an absolute concise plan at the ready to show you (who ever you think you are) can't talk about the problem that is clear, and present, then I would have to say that it is dishonest to just dismiss a point of view contrary to yours on its face.

j-mac
 
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...

So we have to cut the budget CAUSE WE CANNOT AFFORD THE SPENDING! What a ****ing concept!
 
If the budget law is the one that is in effect, and not the debt ceiling law, then Congress could conceivably impeach the President for not enforcing the budget law. In this case, Obama has no choice about the matter. He must meet the budget obligations set out by Congress and signed by him, or else he is in violation of the law, and in peril of facing impeachment.
 
Dezaad said:
If the budget law is the one that is in effect, and not the debt ceiling law, then Congress could conceivably impeach the President for not enforcing the budget law. In this case, Obama has no choice about the matter. He must meet the budget obligations set out by Congress and signed by him, or else he is in violation of the law, and in peril of facing impeachment.
Click to expand...

LAUGHABLE!

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!
 
j-mac said:
I think using this kind of Allensky tactic in talking about the problem is deplorable.
Click to expand...

: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.

Most people really don't have a real grasp on not only how vast government spending is, but haven't given, nor have the time to invest going line by line. That is why we elect representatives who's sole job is to do these things on our behalf.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll make it easy for you, because there really aren't that many IMPORTANT line items in the federal budget. Here is the breakdown. If you don't want to raise the debt ceiling, your task is to cut 33% of spending in the next four weeks. Good luck.

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%

I await your answer as to which of these categories should be cut, and by how much. Should we stop sending out social security checks? Should we stop paying our soldiers' salaries and/or deny them the equipment they need? Should we suddenly cut off health care funding for patients who were depending on treatment next month? Or should we literally default on the debt? Even if you want to eliminate EVERYTHING ELSE THE GOVERNMENT DOES in the next four weeks, your answer must involve some combination of these options. There is no mathematical alternative.

Now, if you are trying to say that anyone who doesn't have an absolute concise plan at the ready to show you (who ever you think you are) can't talk about the problem that is clear, and present, then I would have to say that it is dishonest to just dismiss a point of view contrary to yours on its face.
Click to expand...

If you don't have the vaguest idea of where these cuts are going to come from and are unwilling to learn, then you don't have any informed opinion on the subject and should STFU.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom