Obama must use Constitution to raise debt ceiling

[jackoroe]

Look at that graphic as often as you like. The truth is Obama is pissing away 1.65 Trillion that we don't have this year alone. Bush, who was what I consider a profligate spender, pissed away $400 Billion in his worst year. Obama has quadrupled what he spent in only one year. So, let's get past the histrionics of blaming the republicans.

Obama has added over $4,000,000,000,000 to the debt in just two years and change. He is by far the most profligate spender in the history of the world, bar none.

 

[BostonPirate]

Look at that graphic as often as you like. The truth is Obama is pissing away 1.65 Trillion that we don't have this year alone. Bush, who was what I consider a profligate spender, pissed away $400 Billion in his worst year. Obama has quadrupled what he spent in only one year. So, let's get past the histrionics of blaming the republicans.

Obama has added over $4,000,000,000,000 to the debt in just two years and change. He is by far the most profligate spender in the history of the world, bar none.

that last sentence is just false, and there is proof in this thread that it is just not true.

and if you would answer a simple question?

Did Obama write the budget that you are crying about?

notice this is a yes or no question.

 

[JB3]

it DOES NOT give them the right to not pay a debt that they have incurred.

Furthermore, it instructs, it REQUIRES the executive branch, namely the treasury, to pay all debts the congress creates, and the Supreme court of america says so, and has instructed congress and the exec to consider all debts it incurs as non negotiable and payable. There is NO WIGGLE ROOM.

IF you write the law that tells the treasury to pay for something, you cannot write a law that restricts its ability to do as told.

Anyone who wants to twist logic to get around the true legal requirements of the government are playing mind games with themselves to rationalize an unconstitutional and illegal practice.

once again...

Tell the people you elected to write a bill that doesn't spend so much. I would suggest you start with their idea that the dept of defense and the dept of homeland security need more money when they already consume well over half of the discretionary spending, and Mr Gates specifically asked them to give him millions of dollars less than they decided to give him for the armed forces.

we are two grown men, and we know what this is all about. 80 people who are in the tea party caucus, are trying to subvert the laws and the constitution, because they cannot get what they want by doing it the legal way.

See what happens when you have to put your protest signs down and write laws?

You find out that things are not as you pretend, or as FOX news has informed you of.

We've been through this before, so I'll say it again and in big letters since you apparently missed it the first time:

Any attempt to raise the debt limit without the approval of congress would be a violation of the separation of powers, and the President would be violating his oath of office if he were to do so. The ONLY body authorized to raise the debt limit is congress.


There, was that so hard now?

 

[JB3]

Its time we stopped looking at this budget debate through a political lens.

Realize a vast majority of the American people would support raising taxes to fix the budget deficit than people who would go with cuts only.

Even more people would support doing both, but a very small minority will support cuts only.

Its clear people don't want small government, if conservatives did they would agree to cuts to in the budget not including social programs, and if democrats did they would agree to cutting social programs, which they are not.

Tax breaks and subsides for oil companies were the FIRST THING republicans and democrats agreed on. Neither party wants to raise taxes, but taking away subsidies and giveaways (the bailout) for big oil and the rich is something both parties will support.

If the tea-party CONSERVATIVES are determined to protect the wealthy and corporate welfare, let the President invoke the 14th amendment saying the debt is vaild and cannot be questioned. The deficit is created by congress, the courts would rule that by allowing defense appropriations the congress knew full well it was facing default and cannot use denying a credit increase as an excuse to not fund programs already in place.

You voted for a spending bill, you cannot now say you want out of it because it suits your political needs. Im fairly certain the President will say something along these lines very soon.

This will take the burden of governing off the GOP since they clearly do not want to govern, and allow the President to make a good argument about why the debt ceiling is going up.

Bill Clinton and Senator McConnell have already voiced support for such a maneuver, I dont think you need any more endorsement than that. The Tea Party will be shown that they cant act recklessly when the FF&C of the USA is in question.

You can argue that congress has to pass such a proposal, but it has a lot better chance of getting though congress than anything Obama would propose.

First of all, read the constitution and then get back to us. The President would find himself on the wrong end of the Supreme Court's judgement if he were to attempt to raise the limit without congressional approval.

Secondly; go actually look at the details of McConnell's plan. It has nothing to do with just letting him do it. It is an authorization for the President to raise the debt limit three times before 2013, and nothing after that. It is congress authorizing him to raise the debt, with their tacit approval. (which is necessary under the constitution)

 

[jackoroe]

BP, arguing that Obama is not the most profligate spender in the history of the world is laughable. As of last fall, he piled $3,000,000,000,000 onto the debt. It was only $13,000,000,000,000 then. It stands at almost $15,000,000,000,000 as of today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

Please stop defending the indefensible.

 

[Centexfarmer]

BP, arguing that Obama is not the most profligate spender in the history of the world is laughable. As of last fall, he piled $3,000,000,000,000 onto the debt. It was only $13,000,000,000,000 then. It stands at almost $15,000,000,000,000 as of today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

Please stop defending the indefensible.

I agree.

Perhaps if the Republicans had at any point in time acknowledged that Bush43 began his presidency with a budget surplus, and that within the eight years that Bush and the six years that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government during his administration, and that they grew the Federal Government more than any other administration since FDR, and piled on more debt through spending and tax cuts than every single administration since George Washington combined, then it's easy to see why anyone would think that Bush created this problem.

HOWEVER....

Obama gets elected, and he didn't even need the keys to the candy store, because the doors were left wide open, and Treasury already had a seat waiting for him.

Obama says 'we'll spend our way out of this crisis!'

Both Houses of Congress, and both Republican and Democratic Parties agreed, until a little group showed up in 2010 to throw a little Tea Party.*

*(Even though they're nothing more than a group organized by partisan hacks, former elected Republican representatives, and high powered lobbiest who gets their primary funding from individuals "grass roots" therefore they can make that claim.)

Both parties now want to protect their base, and some are more fearful of the Tea Party than others, so now they're willing to draft a compromise (Both Republicans and Democrats) that will allow them to throw the President under the bus while protecting their Congressional and Senate Seats back home.

Kicking the can further down the road.

The Republicans, and Bush43 got us into this mess.

Obama appears to have tried to make things work, but few really want to see him succeed.

And while Washington burns, the rest of us fight amongst ourselves over the trivial and the banal while the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and we compete amongst ourselves over who's the most "patriotic" while we work a multitude of minimum wage jobs, under employed and without adequate healthcare, and very little chance to actually get a leg up.

Amazing!

 

[Centexfarmer]

By the Numbers:

Q: Who holds the $14.3 trillion in outstanding U.S. debt?

A: The U.S. government owes itself $4.6 trillion, mostly borrowed from Social Security revenues. The remaining $9.7 trillion is owed to investors in Treasury securities - banks, pension funds, individual investors, state and local governments and foreign investors and governments. Nearly half of that - $4.5 trillion - is held by foreigners including China with $1.15 trillion and Japan with $907 billion.


Q: How did the debt grow from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its current $14.3 trillion?

A: The biggest contributors to the nearly $9 trillion increase over a decade were:
-2001 and 2003 tax cuts under President George W. Bush: $1.6 trillion.
-Additional interest costs: $1.4 trillion.
-Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $1.3 trillion.
-Economic stimulus package under Obama: $800 billion.
-2010 tax cuts, a compromise by Obama and Republicans that extended jobless benefits and cut payroll taxes: $400 billion.
-2003 creation of Medicare's prescription drug benefit: $300 billion.
-2008 financial industry bailout: $200 billion.
-Hundreds of billions less in revenue than expected since the Great Recession began in December 2007.
- Other spending increases in domestic, farm and defense programs, adding lesser amounts.

 

[BostonPirate]

BP, arguing that Obama is not the most profligate spender in the history of the world is laughable. As of last fall, he piled $3,000,000,000,000 onto the debt. It was only $13,000,000,000,000 then. It stands at almost $15,000,000,000,000 as of today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019931-503544.html

Please stop defending the indefensible.

that does not consider the GDP percentage. You know, we can play with numbers all you like, but the real truth is that he got handed a bag of shit by bush and all those years of his rubber stamp congress.

An economy doesn't ditch merely by one man stepping into an office. It takes years of concerted abuse and poor choices.

What is bothering me is that the GOP and YOU in this instance are acting like they have no part in this. That the nightmare that Bush created was for all practical purposes unmanageable.

Every effort to insure that the same thing does not happen and continue is either filibustered or blocked by the house of reps, and has been since Obama got in office.

The stimulus package wound up costing half as much as expected by the CBO, and half that was in tax breaks.

Did the tax cuts work for bush? have they worked for Obama?

lets be adults. The revenue for the nation needs to rise, and the only people who can afford it right now are the rich. thats just the way this nation has run itself. We tolerate excessive profit taking by anyone with the skills to do it, and our society gives them the lifes usually only afforded the royalty of other nations.

Historically in times that we engaged in wars, we raised the taxes across the board, and especially on the wealthy, Shared sacrifice has always been an american value.

up until now.

Now its everyman for himself, and it has gotten us no where but dug a deeper hole.

Clinton raised taxes, cut spending, and created jobs, while supplying a surplus of revenue.

Have we all gone blind or are we so committed to our side of the washington meltdown that we cannot see the simple solution is to return the tax rates and the spending rates, adjusted by GDP to todays economy to the Clinton levels.

Clinton balanced the budget in eight years, and he didn't have to dismantle social security, medicare or medicaid to do it.

So my question is?

why aren't we just going back to the already proven method that worked?

What real reason could there possibly be for that. Do you remember the days when the biggest worry americans had was who was sucking the presidents cock?

Theres a sollution out there, and its in writing in the halls of the library of congress, and if a few legislators went and read them, or just looked them up on the einternet, perhaps we could find ourselves a way out.

But its not working the way it is.

 

[evanrick]

the GOP saying Obama needs to stop spending is like a morbidly obese person telling someone to stop eating twinkies.

 

[Kulindahr]

I absolutely agree, they need to not spend so much. But which of the statists from either party of doing that? McConnell, Boehner, Reid, Pelosi? Not one of them. They all want the party to keep on rolling and it's time to stop it dead in it's tracks. Maybe we can all sit around and wait for the Obama plan that will cut 4 trillion someday and somewhere, but he's not sure when or where.

No more bullshit promises to make cuts 10 years down the road. It's got to be done and done now.

If Obama thinks he got the juice to raise the debt ceiling let him shit or get off the pot.

You want it done today?

Then write your Congresscritters and beg them to pass a law seizing 99% of everyone;s net worth over $5 million, and dump it on the debt. That's the only way it's going to get done "today".

Your argument basically boils down to it being okay for a president from one party being allowed to incur debts that will take thirty years to pay, but a president of another party not being allowed to come up with a plan to deal with that, that will take ten years to do.

You want the debt dealt with? Then help get all the Tea Party people out of Congress. The course of action they're aiming for would make our current debt an albatross around the country's neck for the next two generations -- the time it would take to climb out of the economic catastrophe their path would cause.

 

[Kulindahr]

We've been through this before, so I'll say it again and in big letters since you apparently missed it the first time:

Any attempt to raise the debt limit without the approval of congress would be a violation of the separation of powers, and the President would be violating his oath of office if he were to do so. The ONLY body authorized to raise the debt limit is congress.


There, was that so hard now?

The point is that many people think the debt limit is unconstitutional.

I agree. Congress can't have it both ways; they can't both authorize debt and then not authorize paying it.

Here's what the debt ceiling nonsense comes down to: little boys wanting to look good by voting to buy things, then passing a rule that says those things don't have to be paid for. They want to authorize debt, then pretend they didn't.

Congress already voted for the money to be spent. It has to be spent. They can't hide behind a gimmick that invalidates acts of Congress signed into law by the President.

 

[Kulindahr]

First of all, read the constitution and then get back to us. The President would find himself on the wrong end of the Supreme Court's judgement if he were to attempt to raise the limit without congressional approval.

Secondly; go actually look at the details of McConnell's plan. It has nothing to do with just letting him do it. It is an authorization for the President to raise the debt limit three times before 2013, and nothing after that. It is congress authorizing him to raise the debt, with their tacit approval. (which is necessary under the constitution)

He wouldn't raise the limit, he'd ignore it as unconstitutional. Congress cannot both authorize and not authorize a debt. The legislation was passed, debts were incurred, and they're supposed to be paid.

 

[MoltenRock III]

There is only going to be one of two possible outcomes in this debt ceiling dealio.

1.) Republicans insist on flinging the USA off the cliff and defaulting.

2.) A clean bill will be passed that possibly has some verbiage about certain cuts to be made in the future, or by a future vote of Congress, blah, blah, blah. Just as President Johnson did by allowing spending cuts to be mentioned in a debt ceiling vote. He knew full well the Congress would never cut as much as what they said they would, and true to form they did not.

 

[JB3]

He wouldn't raise the limit, he'd ignore it as unconstitutional. Congress cannot both authorize and not authorize a debt. The legislation was passed, debts were incurred, and they're supposed to be paid.

He doesn't have the right to choose what is unconstitutional and what isn't.

 

[Kulindahr]

He doesn't have the right to choose what is unconstitutional and what isn't.

He has the duty to carry out the law.

Paying the bills Congress has voted to incur and presidents have signed into law is part of his duty.

When a law says he can't carry out his duty, he has to ignore that law. And this one is easy: it's his constitutional duty to carry out the laws and honor the debts they incur. Anything in the way of that has to be cast aside.