Yes you can, if you create a short-term buffer from the revenues coming in.
The debt, most of it rolls over every 2 years. How exactly do you plan to “buffer” that?
Not all bonds mature at the same time. If it did, it would run afoul of the debt limit - because it never was $32B, was it?
Where, in the stopping of social security, is the fraudulent misrepresentation required by Restatment 2d of Torts § 537 ?
The debt is $16T. Half of that $8T which means on average more than $300B is rolled over each month. The debt limit isn’t an issue since as you yourself pointed out in another thread, the debt is being ROLLED OVER. You do know what that means, right?
Really? You do know what a moral obligation is, right?
It’s not quite the same, in terms of contract law. For one thing, what kind of contract doesn’t give any choice to the parties purportedly entering into it?
In general, when the government enters into any agreement, it does so either by funding the obligation or by explicitly noting that some or all payments made thereunder are subject to the availability of funds.
Again, I understand the desire to see these as identical, but as far as constitutional law goes, they are not. “Debt” is what the Congress borrows on the credit of the United States. It’s not obligations incurred by the government from contracts, promises, or the like.
Yes. There are two auctions per week. That’s 8 each month. That’s $40B per auction on average. That can be easily buffered using federal revenue.
Sure. An obligation that someone claims exists but has no remedy at law. You excoriated Terr for not knowing “the legal principle of reliance.” Now that I point out the inconvenient fact that the “legal principle of reliance” doesn’t work, your argument shifts.
I agree that these things are probably not debt in the 14th amendment sense but what are these rulings you are talking about? And does this mean that a failure to increase the dent ceiling could jeopardize these vendors payments? Because some conservatives have been saying the opposite.
Moody’s doesn’t seem to think it’s a problem. Cite:
Obviously you didn’t read my post very carefully or you didn’t grasp its import, let me help you out.
The point was that our legal system is based on moral principles and those principles can’t be ignored in the conduct of the govt’s business. Does that help?
Not very much, because it isn’t true. The government can ignore moral principles all they want, as long as they obey the law. So can everyone else.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t have any cites, to be honest I was relying on something I (thought) I read on another thread here. I’ll back off that point unless I can find anything, but like you I still don’t believe they would be considered 14th Amendment debts.
What do you mean by vendor payments? Do you mean people who have already sold the government goods or services and who have outstanding payables?
Oh dear. I don’t think I could have figured that one out on my own.
Is sarcasm your way of conceding the point?
Well put, but I disagree with the assertion that only Congress has the authority to set X, Y and Z. Each of those legal enactments must be in legislation signed by the President. Otherwise, if X, Y and Z are out of whack (as they appear to be with the debt limit), the President would just wash his hands and say, you guys created this mess, you fix it.
[sigh]no, it’s my way of saying it’s a non-point worthy only of a non-response. If you don’t see why then there’s really no point in any further explanation.
While not explicitly 14th Amendment related, Flemming v. Nestor (1960) notes that Social Security benefits are not property or a contractual obligation and thus not subject to the “takings clause.” So a person who was denied their benefits at an individual level like Nestor was, would only be protected by the due process clause of the constitution.
The fact that the court rejected the concept that they were property or a contractual obligation would suggest to me they could not be considered part of the debt outstanding.