Debt Ceiling Increase or Spending Cuts First?

[gallantwarrior]

Just a reminder, most defense spending is discretionary, not mandatory. In order to stay under the current debt ceiling limit without illegally cutting mandatory spending,

the government would have to defund almost all of the military.

Now that is rather puzzling because of all the "mandatory" spending programs, providing for national defense is the one federal function mandated by the Constitution. So the threat of cutting military spending is bullshit, and unconstitutional, to boot.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

 

[ScienceRocks]

Just a reminder, most defense spending is discretionary, not mandatory. In order to stay under the current debt ceiling limit without illegally cutting mandatory spending,

the government would have to defund almost all of the military.

Now that is rather puzzling because of all the "mandatory" spending programs, providing for national defense is the one federal function mandated by the Constitution. So the threat of cutting military spending is bullshit, and unconstitutional, to boot.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

North Korea and Iran have HUGE militaries but we could smoke them both. Why? Because we spend on R@d.

No part of that constitution says that defending the world from its self is justification for becoming a third world shit hole. Cutting the R@d budget would do more to harm our military then bringing 1/3rd of them home.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I bet you people would of protest the tank
I bet you people would of protest against the airplane
I bet you people would of protest against the gun

Fuck I think you people were probably protesting electricy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I bet you people would of protest the tank
I bet you people would of protest against the airplane
I bet you people would of protest against the gun

Fuck I think you people were probably protesting electricity.

What are you talking about? Who are you referring to?

 

[gallantwarrior]

No, an elections office. Did you need help? You do seem to have a fixation. Not sure if there is really a help line for you...just porn.

10 things not to say to a lesbian

lighten up, wytchey. jokin with ya. whose election are you pushing with your election office?

BTW, you take yourself way too seriously, could be a mental problem.

I'm not pushing for anyone's election...I work for a county registrar.

No, I don't take myself too seriously, but you ARE too fixated on my being gay. You bring it up at every opportunity. Seriously, what do you need to know that will satisfy this insatiable hunger you have for the details of the lesbian life?

You have claimed to be lesbian, haven't you? Why so touchy when someone recognizes that?

 

[Seawytch]

lighten up, wytchey. jokin with ya. whose election are you pushing with your election office?

BTW, you take yourself way too seriously, could be a mental problem.

I'm not pushing for anyone's election...I work for a county registrar.

No, I don't take myself too seriously, but you ARE too fixated on my being gay. You bring it up at every opportunity. Seriously, what do you need to know that will satisfy this insatiable hunger you have for the details of the lesbian life?

You have claimed to be lesbian, haven't you? Why so touchy when someone recognizes that?

Fishy is obsessed, which is why he brought it up in a completely unrelated thread...just like he always does.

 

[gallantwarrior]

But you 1) called not raising the debt ceiling a crisis, and 2) that you were not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis.

So how can you accept not raising the debt ceiling but also not accept any outcome that results in a crisis?

Another false dilemma argument. This is also a red herring. I didn't ask you to critique my grammar, Carbine. No, I called RAISING IT a crisis. Since it will result in further so-labeled "crises" down the road. Sigh, just when I had hope for you.

Raising it is not the crisis. Do you understand the debt ceiling is the money Congress has already agreed to spend?

I know conservatives like the bullshit "household budget" analogies (even though government or even business is nothing like a household budget) so how's this...

Would you say "I'm not paying my heating bill until you agree to stop buying clothes."?

Knowing we did not have that money, they should never had agreed to spend it, should they? But they've gotten by so far, kicking this can down the road, just as long as they have been able to buy off their constituencies and their big contributors in order to get reelected.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do people on here actually look at the facts and figures or just regurgitate rubbish they've heard from the media!

People often confuse national debt and deficit, the actual budget deficit of the USA has fallen but it will still add to the national debt until you reach a balanced budget.

Theres no debate on whats best for a country,even Liberals like myself would still like to see balanced budgets and even surpluses, something put aside for a rainy day. But its how you get to that point and who pays.

The only way you get to a balanced budget is when the economy is strong, increasing tax receipts, less welfare benefits. To try and simply cut your way to that is self-defeating in the current economy as too much money comes out of that, it needs to be done slowly or delayed.

Under the current administration their policies have caused a weak recovery, even after spending Trillions. They have increased taxation at a time when we need Private Investment to bring back jobs. Instead one of their major indicators is Part time employment. This being the Gov't being the problem and not the solution. It is the Gov't stopping our recovery due to anti business stances.



Historically, increasing taxes when you need investment DOESN'T WORK. Private business want incentives to spend their money to create jobs. The Dems have done the opposite and Private Business isn't buying it. Thus we are stuck in the rut of employment not increasing. The ACA is causing businesses to go Part Time. You push the Liberal rhetoric, claiming we need to negotiate, but Obama and the Dems have stated their way or the highway. Sluggish economic results after Trillions spent with no end in sight.

There is however a reason why we still see other countries continuing to buy US debt, even allowing for your large national debt and deficits the economy is still No 1 in the world, the USA will always be able to service its debt, there is a lot of hysteria in the USA media and especially amongst the TP that the sky is going to fall in and the end of the USA economy is close, this to be honest is nonsense.

Look at the historical value of the dollar and get back with me. Deflating the dollar hurts all Americans. In the G8 and G20 summits China and Japan stated that the U.S. is starting a Currency War. Purposely deflating the value of the Dollar against their currencies. Our unfunded liabilities are coming soon, which will cause our debt to accelerate. Thus causing more borrowing and more interest payments. Which is a path to ruin.

People need to stop this hysteria, the situation is nothing like is being portrayed, yes theres a debt problem but this has been evident for decades, the main concern for all politicians in the USA should be growth and jobs nothing else because these will give the foundation to get to that balanced budget and address the debt.

Sadly this current Washington debacle just trashes consumer and business confidence so one step forward and two steps back continues to be a yearly thing played out in Congress. Until the GOP either lose the House or come to their senses then this drag on growth will remain, indeed at this point the world just couldn't care less who is in charge so long as its just one party, that seems the only way to stop these continued Washington dramas.

The current crisis was CAUSED BY GOV'T. Our Recovery is DELAYED BY GOV'T. So spare me the BS, that GOV'T IS THE ANSWER WHEN THEY CAUSED THE PROBLEMS.

It's job security. They create the problems and promise solutions that never come, just more problems. Everyone here, lib or con, Dem or Rep, everybody should man up and fire every man (and woman) in Congress for the next few election cycles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a reminder, most defense spending is discretionary, not mandatory. In order to stay under the current debt ceiling limit without illegally cutting mandatory spending,

the government would have to defund almost all of the military.

Now that is rather puzzling because of all the "mandatory" spending programs, providing for national defense is the one federal function mandated by the Constitution. So the threat of cutting military spending is bullshit, and unconstitutional, to boot.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

The Constitution also limits funding of the military to 2 years, which means that appropriations must be passed at least that often,

which makes it discretionary spending by definition.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The big problem with what you just said is the word 'easy'. A balanced budget amendment would be anything but 'easy'.

Uhh yeah it would. Stop spending. Keep the budget balanced. Ensure compliance through dire consequence. Or did simple mathematics suddenly become Quantum Physics for people like you?

I should have said passing a balanced budget amendment would not be easy.

Personally, I'm tired of Congress doing the easy out thing. They should man up and do the tough job they were hired to do: pass a budget and put this country back on track.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not passing a debt ceiling bill now would mean a default.

A default would be very bad for our economy....

 

[gallantwarrior]

Just a reminder, most defense spending is discretionary, not mandatory. In order to stay under the current debt ceiling limit without illegally cutting mandatory spending,

the government would have to defund almost all of the military.

Now that is rather puzzling because of all the "mandatory" spending programs, providing for national defense is the one federal function mandated by the Constitution. So the threat of cutting military spending is bullshit, and unconstitutional, to boot.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense—far more than any other specific area of governance—and grant the full range of authorities necessary for establishing the defense of the nation as it was then understood. Congress is given specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces, organize and arm the militias of the states, and specify the conditions for converting the militias into national service.

Article Two establishes the President as the government’s chief executive officer. Much of that Article relates to the method for choosing the President and sets forth the general executive powers of his office, such as the appointment and veto powers. The only substantive function of government specifically assigned to the President relates to national security and foreign policy, and the first such responsibility granted him is authority to command the military; he is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them. For example, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress power to pass a bankruptcy code, but Congress actually did not enact bankruptcy laws until well into the 19th century.

But the Constitution does require the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

National defense is exclusively the function of the national government. Under our Constitution, the states are generally sovereign, which means that the legitimate functions of government not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. But Article One, Section 10 does specifically prohibit the states, except with the consent of Congress, from keeping troops or warships in time of peace or engaging in war, the only exception being that states may act on their own if actually invaded. (This was necessary because, when the Constitution was written, primitive forms of communication and transportation meant that it could take weeks before Washington was even notified of an invasion.)

A Constitutional Basis for National Security and Defense

North Korea and Iran have HUGE militaries but we could smoke them both. Why? Because we spend on R@d.

No part of that constitution says that defending the world from its self is justification for becoming a third world shit hole. Cutting the R@d budget would do more to harm our military then bringing 1/3rd of them home.

I don't think we should be defending the world from itself. Or "transforming" anyone else's country to some other form of government than they have chosen for themselves. I financing an R@d budget helps strengthen our national defenses, that's fine. But there's so much more going on that is transforming this nation into a 3rd world shithole. So very much more...

 

[Spoonman]

The debts and ACA have already been voted on.

They are not up for negotiation before a 15-month CR up and down clean vote.

The black man won, his supporters won, the bill was passed and signed and opined.

This is over.

 

[Spoonman]

Democrats tell us obamacare is supposed to pay for itself. In that case, as long as it continues to pay for itself and doesn't require additional resources, let it ride. but if it can't pay for itself they need to figure out a way to pay for it besides additional borrowing

 

[Moonglow]

And after Templer took his Viagra.

You think you're cute. Negged.

Debt Ceiling Increase... 10-13-2013 05:12 AM TemplarKormac

You think you

 

[percysunshine]

Not passing a debt ceiling bill now would mean a default.

A default would be very bad for our economy....

Interest on the national debt is only 8% of total revenue. It is easy to avoid default if the Treasury wants to. I predict that Obama will instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to default on something in order to make a point.

 

[Richard-H]

Given our enormous spending problem and our looming debt ceiling crisis, I was wondering, what should happen? Should we raise the debt ceiling and discuss spending cuts, or should we cut spending first before we raise the debt ceiling?

Congress has had plenty of time to negotiate spending cuts. The President (and John Boehner) agreed to $4T in spending cuts several years ago, but Boehner reneged.

Boehner agreed with Reid to cut $90B in spending from the current CR, but then reneged.

The repugs have no interest in cutting spending at all. Their goal is to create these fabricated crisises for political purposes.

It's pure BULLSHIT and everyone knows it!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And after Templer took his Viagra.

You think you're cute. Negged.

Debt Ceiling Increase... 10-13-2013 05:12 AM TemplarKormac

You think you

I finished that sentence in a post, your point?

"You think you're cute. Negged."

Next.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not passing a debt ceiling bill now would mean a default.

A default would be very bad for our economy....

Actually no it wouldn't. It would light a fire under people's asses.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Given our enormous spending problem and our looming debt ceiling crisis, I was wondering, what should happen? Should we raise the debt ceiling and discuss spending cuts, or should we cut spending first before we raise the debt ceiling?

Congress has had plenty of time to negotiate spending cuts. The President (and John Boehner) agreed to $4T in spending cuts several years ago, but Boehner reneged.

Boehner agreed with Reid to cut $90B in spending from the current CR, but then reneged.

The repugs have no interest in cutting spending at all. Their goal is to create these fabricated crisises for political purposes.

It's pure BULLSHIT and everyone knows it!

Each and every time Congress wanted to pass significant spending cuts, the SENATE rejected. Boehner was forced to agree with 100 billion in cuts, down from that $4 trillion figure. You're lying.

And what are the Democrats doing when they shut down memorials and parks and refuse to pay death benefits to soldiers families, is that not for "political purposes"?

You didn't link to either one of those statements, I know for a fact the first one is false.