Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner: I'll Destroy The American Economy If I Don't Get My Way (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would much prefer him to then point out (11+ / 0-)

    that Congress, in passing whatever continuing resolution is being used to fund the government right now, has directed him to spend the money and because it is a newer law, it takes precedence over the older debt ceiling law because the Congress must have changed their minds.  And with that spending bill/continuing resolution in place, he's going to continue to spend as Congress has directed.  

    If Congress has a dispute about that, they can involve the Supreme Court and I'd love to hear them argue that when they told the President to continue spending at this level, they really meant up to the point where their spending drove the deficit so high it hit the ceiling.  Put the onus on Congress to explain why they passed a budget with a huge deficit, when they knew that it would wind up exceeding the debt limit.  If they don't want the limit, remove it.  If they do want the limit, then Congress has to pass a budget that won't have the huge deficit, and that can only happen if they raise taxes and shrink spending, (or they'll have to convince people their voodoo economics works, against all proof to the contrary).

    •  Sometimes words mean what they actually mean. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, revsue, grrr, fhcec, lostinamerica, alba

      They're constantly making the goofy comparison with a family budget.  Our turn.  You can't go to a restaurant, authorize the waiter to bring you dinner, eat it, charge it on your credit card, and then 30 days later pretend you need additional permission, from yourself, to pay the monthly Visa bill.  And deny yourself permission.  

      Does anyone have any idea why the president insists on disarming himself on this issue?  

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 01:30:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think he's disarming himself - (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, SilentBrook

        he's just not going to fight on that ground.

        If I had to guess, he will either insist on a clean increase in the debt ceiling and veto anything that isn't precisely that, or start to prioritize payments by the US Government so that some checks start to bounce.

        •  If so....huge mistake. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Unlike the fiscal cliff, there is genuine and permanent harm to the US, and the US economy, if checks start to bounce.  

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 02:11:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  joe - we won't default on our debt (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, alba, nextstep

            The federal government has more than $2 Trillion of annual revenue. There is plenty of money to not default on our debt. What you will find is that the President and Treasury Sec will start prioritizing what to pay and other creditors will have to wait.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:57:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We won't be insolvent. Making creditors "wait"... (0+ / 0-)

              is default.  Not to get all semantic on you.....

              And with this Treasury Sec, banks will get paid first and probably last.

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 02:37:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not making some payments on a timely basis (0+ / 0-)

                isn't default unless it is on government bonds. Interest and principle on government debt must be made on a timely basis or the US would be in default. Being late on a payment to Lockheed isn't default. Large vendors will be willing to wait and will negotiate some fee for late payment.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:46:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  joesig - because he actually believes it would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        not be constitutional? That's my guess.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok...can you explain the constitutional reasoning? (0+ / 0-)

          The 14th Amendment seems quite clear to me, and to a number of constitutional scholars I've been reading.  It's not clear what would happen if Obama said the 14th Amendment says what it looks like is says.  First, there are questions of who would have standing to challenge it.  And if you're wondering if there is precedent, or if the Supreme Court has ever taken up similar 14th Amendment issues?:
          In 1935, the Supreme Court held that despite the Civil War context, the amendment clearly referred to all federal debt.

          "While [the 14th Amendment] was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation," the majority wrote in Perry v. U.S. "We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress as to those issued before the amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression 'the validity of the public debt' as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations."

          The law at issue, which tried to override the validity of a bond offering, "went beyond the congressional power," the Court ruled, setting a precedent that has not been overturned.

          Because the government borrows based on its full faith, Congress doesn't have the authority to undermine that confidence by reneging on its obligation to its lenders, the ruling declared.

          "To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor," reads the opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. "This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government."

          To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

          by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 05:19:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  joesig - I agree that there are opposing views (0+ / 0-)

            on this issue and constitutional scholars will opine on both sides. It would appear that the POTUS' view falls on the side that the 14th does not give him the authority to raise the debt limit without Congressional approval. His view has been stated with stark clarity and no wiggle room, which I don't fully understand from a negotiating point of view.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:50:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not from a negotiating point of view.... (0+ / 0-)

              a logical point of view, a political point of view, a words mean what they say they mean view, a Supreme Court precedent view.....

              I'm not a fan of "all views are equal", whether it's teaching creationism or allowing the GOP to destroy the credit rating of the United States.  

              We are hoping against hope that the president has learned not to negotiate with himself.  On this issue, he has clearly not learned that lesson.

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 12:43:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Article 2 Section 1 - US Constitution (0+ / 0-)
            Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
            Article 4 of the 14th Amendment is certainly part of the constitutional framework he is sworn to uphold. Arguably, since there are legal avenues to avoid default which are short of breaking the law, it is those avenues rather than defiance of congress that the president should pursue. Platinum coin Seigniorage, and issuance of "consols". Personally, I like the Platinum coin Seigniorage idea but not limited to a couple of trillion dollar coins. The best bet would be the $60T coin proposal or even larger. Retire all Treasury bonds and move to full reserves in banking. The fed (treasury) pays 25bp on reserves - that would be $40Billion/year if those treasuries were converted back to reserves. As it is, total debt service on treasury was $359Billion in fiscal 2012. That was a $320Billion gift from the American people to the bond holders (mostly the 1% of the 1%). Isn't that special????

            We are an amazingly clueless society when it comes to the economy, and especially when it comes to the monetary system, which is entirely misunderstood - much to the extreme detriment of society. But we do have the excuse that our media no longer practices journalism, having substituted taking stenography from the financial elites.

            •  I'm not sure I understood a word.... (0+ / 0-)

              of what you wrote...but I do like the idea of a $60 trillion dollar coin.

              To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

              by joesig on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 07:49:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site