At 16T debt, you’re already a deadbeat. You’re not paying it off. Ever. And you just want to dig deeper.
No I don’t. I support a raising taxes and cutting spending.
You support destroying our credit rating and pushing us into a full-on depression.
this presupposes that they were against raising the debt ceiling during Bush. Hint, they were not.
The only issue raised by House Reps is how to vote for it without looking like they voted for it. Because they’re so dadgum strong on fiscal restraint, what’s most important is not having a Yes vote on a stand alone debt bill, it needs to be attached to something more important.
So far this week we’re 0 for 3 or more for people who want us to immediately balance the budget but don’t have any clue as to how to go about it. If it were so dadblamed easy you’d think they’d have a commonsense, obvious plan at the tip of their fingertips.
However, even if they did have a theoretically possible plan, it’s too late in the game to implement in the short time we have left. At this point, it may not even be possible to avoid raising the debt ceiling without literally descending into anarchy. If you did it without cutting entitlements, you’d have to axe the entire non defense budget, plus 1/3 of the defense budget. Those buildings and checking accounts don’t take care of themselves. Not to mention the hordes of unemployed.
You could also summarily slash the benefits of social security and medicare recipients by 50%. Or most likely, some combination of the two. Let’s call it a happy medium, we could also slash the discretionary budget by 75% allowing us to wind down operations with a minimum of anarchy, slash defense by 33%. Then we’d still have to cut entitlements by more than 10% because we’d be losing the tax revenue of all those laid off people.
But we want to be really responsible like a good family and make sure we balance the budget. We don’t know how much laying off all those people will affect the economy and thus tax revenue. Better play it safe and slash entitlements by 25%. Welcome to your $750 social security check.
OK, so let me ask you the same question I posed earlier: in your understanding of the Constitution, is there some function of Congress that Congress could NOT delegate to the President? You seem to believe that raising the debt ceiling – borrowing more money on the credit of the United States than Congress has allowed – is something Congress could authorize the President to do, because “This is not him taking over powers. Congress still tells him what he can spend.”
What power of Congress could NOT be given to the President using the same reasoning?
Yes, pretty zany and whacky, huh?
Well, no, although I’m relying on prior binding Supreme Court rulings. But the President has plenty of discretionary power to not spend, and a legal procedure for notifying Congress that he does not intend to spend certain monies and the reason behind that decision. 2 USC 683 and 684, as previously mentioned.
The ability to issue new debt is in the Constitution, and that power is reserved to Congress. Congress can limit itself via a debt ceiling, and remove the limit on itself if it wants – but it can’t give the President the power to borrow money directly. This is because, as a matter of well-settled law, there are Congressional powers that cannot be delegated.
Note the House Republicans haven’t said they aren’t raising the debt ceiling this time. The current debate is over the legislation that goes into effect in January, which neither side wants to see go into effect. The House Republicans have just said they are not going to automate the debt ceiling increase process as part of this negotiation.
Issuing debt is the sole prerogative of the Congress, and there is really nothing the President can do to change that, nor should he. Nor should the Congress face opprobrium for refusing to rid themselves of a constitutionally defined power. Should they face scorn when they use it for crass political purposes when they have every intent of approving more debt? Sure, and that’s what elections are for.
Now, it might make sense for the President to say, “from now on, anytime I sign a budget, I want legislation to come to me along with it raising the debt ceiling by the amount necessary to execute the budget. Otherwise, I won’t sign the budget.” The President can certainly do that to try and force the hand of the House. Realistically that is probably the mechanism of how it would happen.
But let’s also not start saying the debt ceiling is some “weird artificial law.” Prior to the debt ceiling the President had to get approval for all debt issuance, it’s not like prior to the debt ceiling he would have just been allowed to issue debt instruments whenever he ran out of money.
It pains me to say this, but Lobohan is exactly right. The time to make harsh spending decisions is when the spending is being done. This crazy method of agreeing to spend more money than we take in, and then cutting off the ability to borrow, is madness.
Because the Constitution does not allow that kind of delegation of powers. It’s not even a controversial matter: if the Constitution says that Congress is in charge of something, Congress cannot pass a law washing their hands of that responsibility. I’m sure if you googled “nondelegation doctrine” there would be plenty of history, perhaps going back to power struggles between Parliament and the King. Simply put, Congress cannot legislate itself out of business.
No, the President cannot unilaterally cut the defense budget after Congress has passed a bill to fund it. Funds may be re-purposed within the approved funding for programs similar to the congressional mandate, but the President cannot simply decide not to spend the money that Congress directed by law for him to spend. As I’ve said before, that’s impoundment, that power was dead and buried after the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and it is very, very, very rare for the President to propose a mid-year termination of funds and have Congress approve that request by passing a new law.
Think of it this way: what Congress passes for a budget is the fiscal plan of the United States. The President cannot line-item veto that law through intentional administrative inaction.
Who is not staying within budget and who is ignoring said budget? If you’ve been paying attention, you’d see that Congress authorizes spending, and the Prez can’t go above that spending. That’s the whole point of this thread-- that Obama cannot, per the constitution, raise the debt limit by himself.
Every once in a while, you exhibit signs of reasonableness. Please stop this practice–it confuses me.
Hence my problem.
Yep. We’ve had to explain over and over again to the right-wing nuts on this MB that this isn’t about letting Obama spend above and beyond what Congress authorized-- it’s about letting him borrow to pay for things we already bought.
Well… I would have said “…letting him borrow to pay for things we already agreed to buy.”
But correct: trying to exercise fiscal responsibility this way is madness.
However, the mere fact that it’s madness does not transform Congress’ role under Art I Sec 8. They cannot delegate the ability to actually incur additional debt to the President. Only Congress may borrow money on the credit of the United States. The fact that Congress is idiotically refusing to use this power as it must cannot change the limit on delegation of Congress’ powers.
Maybe it’s a combination of the two?
Makes sense to me. I know it’s just a negotiating tactic, but I still see the GOP as playing us for stupid. They should stop that silliness and fight for something worth fighting for.
How is it a bad example? They delegate every aspect of military personnel recruitment, selection, training, and promotion* to the executive, except how many total troops we can have.
*okay, so the Senate confirms some military appointments.
Since deficit spending has been going on for decades, I highly doubt it is “some” politicians who are at fault.
I really wish you would quit calling it a budget, since that is something that is set based on income, not on going into debt and more debt.
Send me the things that are in the budget and how much they cost, plus a realistic estimate of income and I’ll send you a budget. The only reason it’s “hard” for politicians is they are more worried about getting re-elected than running the country in an intelligent manner.
My complaints have nothing to do with right now, they were sparked by whoever it was upthread who said we cannot expect the country to stay within budget.
I am not speaking to that part. If you are of the impression I am anti-Obama, that isn’t true as I am completely apolitical. My questions do not hide an agenda.
a word with more meanings than I (curlcoat) understand it to have.
CMC
Deficit spending has been going on for decades, but that’s not what I was referring to. Refusal to raise the debt ceiling is a much more recent innovation in tactics.
Seeing as how you know zero about me, I can only guess you are just here to act like an ass. Go away.
Perhaps it is due to hope that those other politicians who are trying to ruin the country will knock it off?
Anyway, I’m not all that interested in that. All I want to know is why the country cannot be expected to stay on budget.
Wait, are you saying that the Constitutional mandate to “raise and support armies” actually means that Congress would normally be expected to conduct recruiting activities? Does that mean that Congress would normally be expected to “support” armies by having congressional pages run the logistics and supply routes for our troops?
Because as far as I can tell, you’re taking a very literal view of the words “raise and support.” Congress exercises a host of responsibilities for the armed forces: setting endstrengths, limiting the number and tenure of senior officers, dictating pay, bonuses, and benefits, approving the construction of every single military building (typically by name and location), considering nominations of various officers for promotion, and I could go on and on.
To make an apt comparison between Obama’s debt proposal and military recruiting, you would need to show that the military can, without congressional permission, recruit as many soldiers as it wants to at any time it wishes. Is that indeed the case? No.
Currently Congress establishes endstrength limits in law which the military may not exceed, even though the military actually does the legwork of signing people up for boot camp. Also currently, Congress also establishes debt limits in law which the President may not exceed, even though the Treasury does the legwork of issuing bonds to be sold on the market.