• 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!

McConnell Offers 'Backup' US Debt Limit Plan

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From CNBC:

As outlined by McConnell, President Barack Obama would formally request an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which Congress would reject through a "resolution of disapproval."

Obama would then veto that resolution and send it back to Congress. If Congress failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override a veto, the debt ceiling would effectively be lifted by the amount Obama had requested.
Click to expand...

News Headlines

Although the maneuver is creative, it would very likely be unconsitutional. Article I, Section 7 states:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

The reality is that Congress must authorize an increase in the debt ceiling. A maneuver in which the President vetoes Congress's disapproval of raising the debt ceiling will not provide that authorization in place of Congress. That Congress would fail to override the veto would not constitute authorization where authorization had not been set forth in legislation.
 
Last edited:
that is interesting. i am still wondering why bush got every increase to the debt ceiling he requested, and NOW republicans are using this as a wedge? i think it will be their downfall as the majority of americans believe tax increases for wealthy are justified.

we can't reform entitlement programs under this kind of pressure. real reform will have to be carefully crafted.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From CNBC:



News Headlines

Although the maneuver is creative, it would very likely be unconsitutional. Article I, Section 7 states:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

The reality is that Congress must authorize an increase in the debt ceiling. A maneuver in which the President vetoes Congress's disapproval of raising the debt ceiling will not provide that authorization in place of Congress. That Congress would fail to override the veto would not constitute authorization where authorization had not been set forth in legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes, and McConnell is an idiot for not knowing this???????????


Tim-
 
liblady said:
that is interesting. i am still wondering why bush got every increase to the debt ceiling he requested, and NOW republicans are using this as a wedge? i think it will be their downfall as the majority of americans believe tax increases for wealthy are justified.

we can't reform entitlement programs under this kind of pressure. real reform will have to be carefully crafted.
Click to expand...

Because voters have very short term memories. We forget that when a Rep ruled the white house, it was the democrats screaming that raising the debt ceiling was such a horrible thing to do. But now that a Dem rules the white house, seems they conveniently changed their minds. Same with Republicans...they all do it...each and every time... because we let them get away with it. Just like President Obama saying that not raising the debt ceiling was a lack of leadership and blah blah blah...hmmm...he conveniently forgot that when he got into office. Its why nothing ever gets done.
 
McConnel is playing the president like a fiddle.........

.........Obama isnt going to get away with voting present..........and the Democrat Congress...... who havent released a budget in over 800 days.....are going to have to reveal to the American people that they are the drunken liberal sailor whores they have always been.
.
.
.
.
 
...or you could just skip all that, not raise the debt ceiling, and make austerity work.

Y'know...like a responsible government?
 
Hicup said:
Yes, and McConnell is an idiot for not knowing this???????????


Tim-
Click to expand...

IMO, Senator McConnell's floating this idea is quite revealing. It indicates that the Senate Republicans (or at least a sizable number of them) do not want to go on record in voting to raise the debt ceiling. At the same time, there is a sense of understanding, that not raising the debt ceiling is not an option. Hence, they are trying to create an exit strategy under which they can avoid voting to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling and, at the same time, not be burdened with the responsibility of the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling. Unfortunately, one cannot so easily decouple choices and consequences. On the this issue, as is the case with so many momentous ones, an evasion of tough choices can become an invitation to a crisis.

The participants in the negotations really need to get past the conflict stage in which they battle over almost theological differences in ideology and get to the stage of crafting agreement based on the parameters where common ground exists (smaller deal, less entitlement impact, no tax changes). If not, my guess is that the financial markets may begin to show their first hints of distress beginning sometime in the next two weeks. A hint of that distress would be a co-movement where stock and bond prices fall simultaneously, sending yields higher. It would not be implausible if one of the ratings agencies fires a warning shot before the month is out should there be little sign of agreement. Of course, in that environment, there would be the risk that negative psychology could begin to feed upon itself, leading to a rapid deterioration of market conditions.

In the end, I believe there will be an agreement, albeit without a truly credible fiscal consolidation path. A crisis will be averted, but there may be some adverse changes in risk perceptions concerning the U.S.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From CNBC:



News Headlines

Although the maneuver is creative, it would very likely be unconsitutional. Article I, Section 7 states:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

The reality is that Congress must authorize an increase in the debt ceiling. A maneuver in which the President vetoes Congress's disapproval of raising the debt ceiling will not provide that authorization in place of Congress. That Congress would fail to override the veto would not constitute authorization where authorization had not been set forth in legislation.
Click to expand...

The GOP is setting a trap for Obama. Obama vetoes then raises it on his own, per the Republican plan, he gets attacked as trashing the Constitution. However, Obama actually does have a play at invoking the "legitimacy of all valid debt" clause, contained in the 14th Amendment. Whereas Congress violates the Constitution by refusing to authorize what the United States owes, Obama can submit an executive order designed to bring the United States into compliance with the Constitution.
 
I don't disagree, and although my well thought out reply to this frankly would be too long to post here. But in a nut shell, the rest of America, you know all of us dumb working, and none working stiffs need to get a wake up call toot sweet. Something really bad has to happen to show the American people why tax and spend policies have consequences, eventually. Oh, and by no means am I singling out the democrats here. Republican's are just as much to blame. Republican's are just not as ambitious, and blatent about it.

Read my sig.. It applies more today than ever. The real problem for the republican's is that their lack of courage, and similar behavior has caused that burden gap to widen. We now have roughly 48% of the US population NOT paying taxes at all, well except sales tax, and that is tough to overcome for anyone wishing to eat cake out of the Oval office..

Courage..


Tim-

edit - sorry was meant in reply to Don.
 
danarhea said:
The GOP is setting a trap for Obama. Obama vetoes then raises it on his own, per the Republican plan, he gets attacked as trashing the Constitution. However, Obama actually does have a play at invoking the "legitimacy of all valid debt" clause, contained in the 14th Amendment. Whereas Congress violates the Constitution by refusing to authorize what the United States owes, Obama can submit an executive order designed to bring the United States into compliance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's what the judicial branch is for, Dan.

Tim-
 
Jeezy said:
...or you could just skip all that, not raise the debt ceiling, and make austerity work.

Y'know...like a responsible government?
Click to expand...


Yeah I know man. That austerity has been working great for the European countries right? I mean, it isn't like they've been having mass riots or anything, ya know?
 
liblady said:
that is interesting. i am still wondering why bush got every increase to the debt ceiling he requested, and NOW republicans are using this as a wedge?
Click to expand...

because now we have 1.5 Trillion dollar deficits. because now we need to find someone to start buying 70% of our bond issue, and the smart money has currently fled the market. because now Republicans are living in memory of that awful morning when they woke up with a horse head in their bed attached to a note signed "it's a deal you can't refuse. love, the Tea Party".
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Yeah I know man. That austerity has been working great for the European countries right? I mean, it isn't like they've been having mass riots or anything, ya know?
Click to expand...

Pft. Cheap comparison. Unlike Europe, we don't have satellite states who used our common currency in order to print cheap government bonds, keep selling those bonds long after your economy could not support them, hide their lackadaisical spending beneath Teutonic fiscal prudence, and then hire accountants to misrepresent their credit rating to the world. You're taking a completely unrelated situation, and interpreting it to mean that "austerity" in itself is a bad thing.

I can't really respect that argument.

EDIT- Also, 600th post.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
...or you could just skip all that, not raise the debt ceiling, and make austerity work.

Y'know...like a responsible government?
Click to expand...

Too late. This would have been doable a year or two ago, but there's just too much momentum. When you cut too much too fast, it hurts too many people.
 
Deuce said:
Too late. This would have been doable a year or two ago, but there's just too much momentum. When you cut too much too fast, it hurts too many people.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Two years ago, we were in literal recession, with negative GDP growth.
 
Jeezy said:
...or you could just skip all that, not raise the debt ceiling, and make austerity work.

Y'know...like a responsible government?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that logic:

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, somebody has to choose between making Social Security payments and the Defense Department making payroll. Go ahead, I'll let you choose. I like the idea of responsible government, but the time for that was a few years ago. Now, the responsible thing is to raise the ceiling, even though this will be difficult for some to do politically.

McConnell's being an asshat. He's just trying to deflect responsibility. Harry Reid, I understand, loves the idea because it means he doesn't have to take responsibility either. I've got news for these guys: YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY! Your job is to make hard choices and to be accountable to the people for that.
 
cpwill said:
because now we have 1.5 Trillion dollar deficits. because now we need to find someone to start buying 70% of our bond issue, and the smart money has currently fled the market. because now Republicans are living in memory of that awful morning when they woke up with a horse head in their bed attached to a note signed "it's a deal you can't refuse. love, the Tea Party".
Click to expand...

This is probably the first post where you and I agree 100%. See...bipartisanship is possible. :)

rocket88 said:
Here's the problem with that logic:

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, somebody has to choose between making Social Security payments and the Defense Department making payroll. Go ahead, I'll let you choose. I like the idea of responsible government, but the time for that was a few years ago. Now, the responsible thing is to raise the ceiling, even though this will be difficult for some to do politically.

McConnell's being an asshat. He's just trying to deflect responsibility. Harry Reid, I understand, loves the idea because it means he doesn't have to take responsibility either. I've got news for these guys: YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY! Your job is to make hard choices and to be accountable to the people for that.
Click to expand...

Here, here! Well said!!
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Here's the problem with that logic:

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, somebody has to choose between making Social Security payments and the Defense Department making payroll. Go ahead, I'll let you choose. I like the idea of responsible government, but the time for that was a few years ago. Now, the responsible thing is to raise the ceiling, even though this will be difficult for some to do politically.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, is that a problem with my logic? I never said there wouldn't be difficult choices. That's why it's called "austerity." The idea that we could have done this "a few years ago" but not now is silly. Now is precisely the time to do it. Also, I don't buy the whole "It's either food for the poor or security for the helpless," approach. Not all government spending is completely necessary, so the choice you're presenting me with is more than a little bit silly.

rocket88 said:
McConnell's being an asshat. He's just trying to deflect responsibility. Harry Reid, I understand, loves the idea because it means he doesn't have to take responsibility either. I've got news for these guys: YOU WEREN'T ELECTED TO DEFLECT RESPONSIBILITY! Your job is to make hard choices and to be accountable to the people for that.
Click to expand...

Well if he wasn't elected to deflect responsibility, then he shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, should he?
 
Jeezy said:
Also, I don't buy the whole "It's either food for the poor or security for the helpless," approach. Not all government spending is completely necessary, so the choice you're presenting me with is more than a little bit silly.
Click to expand...

I didn't make it up myself. I got from Jay Powell, Undersecretary of the Treasury under George H W Bush.

What If We Don't Make The Debt Ceiling Deadline? : NPR

Well if he wasn't elected to deflect responsibility, then he shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, should he?
Click to expand...

Or maybe he should. Either way, he should accept the responsibility for it.
 
cpwill said:
because now we have 1.5 Trillion dollar deficits. because now we need to find someone to start buying 70% of our bond issue, and the smart money has currently fled the market. because now Republicans are living in memory of that awful morning when they woke up with a horse head in their bed attached to a note signed "it's a deal you can't refuse. love, the Tea Party".
Click to expand...

Except now we would not have those problems if republicans had not kept kicking the can down the street.

See, I can point fingers too.
 
liblady said:
that is interesting. i am still wondering why bush got every increase to the debt ceiling he requested, and NOW republicans are using this as a wedge? i think it will be their downfall as the majority of americans believe tax increases for wealthy are justified.

we can't reform entitlement programs under this kind of pressure. real reform will have to be carefully crafted.
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it as well, L. Americans rarely agree on anything but all the polls show a great majority of the country favors increasing taxes on the wealthy along with spending cuts to help reduce our deficit.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Except now we would not have those problems if republicans had not kept kicking the can down the street.

See, I can point fingers too.
Click to expand...

And it's just going to get worse under President Impulsebuy McSpendington in 2016.
(finger prepointing. beat that!)
 
Deuce said:
And it's just going to get worse under President Impulsebuy McSpendington in 2016.
(finger prepointing. beat that!)
Click to expand...

If somebody named "Impulsebuy McSpendington" runs in 2016, I am so voting for him (or her)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom