Is it "Congress's" Constitutional Duty To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

[Billo_Really]

Think about it. Karine Jean-Pierre says:

“You’ve heard from the president multiple times during the last five months. He’s been very clear,” she said. “You’ve heard from the president; you’ve heard from the economic team; you’ve heard from Democrats, the leadership in the House, in the Senate talk — speak to this about the urgency, about Congress actually needing to act and doing their constitutional duty.”

So, if it was set up that it is up to Congress to raise the debt ceiling then that pretty much means that it isn't an automatic thing if they have to decide to do it. So, it is not Congress's Constitutional duty to just raise the debt ceiling automatically because it was set up that they debate it.

Further, I find it fairly amusing that some Democrats want to use the 14th amendment from 1868 to override a law from 1917.

Not to mention, Republicans in the House have already passed a debt ceiling increase. We're waiting on the Senate and Biden to pass it into law.

House Democratic angst grows as Biden's debt limit negotiations with GOP drag on

House Democratic anxieties are flaring over President Joe Biden's debt ceiling negotiations with Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy to avert a U.S. default.

www.yahoo.com

Congress is Constitutionally bound to care for the general welfare of the United States. House Republicans are trying to make this a political football. Well fuck that! We will not negotiate with Congressional terrorists.

You need to stop voting for fucked up pieces of shit!

 

[Independent thinker]

We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.

All I can respond back to that is the truth and the facts, which is what the left claim they are for. Republicans in the House have already passed a debt ceiling increase. It's now up to Schumer's senate and Biden to pass it into law to avert the crisis. If they don't then it is on them.

 

[Independent thinker]

What you are calling "Russian roulette" was the frog staying in the water with slowly escalating temperature. You didn't deal with the crisis, you only put it off longer.

Since you're at 31 trillion you want to dump on your kids and growing of our debts to dump on our children, how much are you OK with dumping on them? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?

You are talking to a brick wall. The left believe the debt never needs to be paid back so the amount really doesn't matter. 200 trillion? 500 trillion? It's all the same to them.

 

[Independent thinker]

I don't have a problem with term limits.

I have a problem with reelection.

WW

Could you name a few who you think deserve to be re-elected, or do you just want a revolving door which never stops?

 

[Independent thinker]

Congress is Constitutionally bound to care for the general welfare of the United States. House Republicans are trying to make this a political football. Well fuck that! We will not negotiate with Congressional terrorists.

You need to stop voting for fucked up pieces of shit!

LOL. Then don't negotiate.

 

[bendog]

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Simplified, a 1917 law usually would trump an 1868 law and set new precedent. Sure, an amendment is an amendment but the 1917 law was passed when they knew what the 14th amendment was and not one person has questioned that in over 100 years. So, to question it now would be a rather high bar.

"they" passed election reforms even knowing what the 1st said, yet the gop Justices had not problem with striking down the reforms based on the 1st. imo that's a direct historical/facutal analogy to the dems and the debt ceiling.

I'm not saying the election reforms that were struck down were good or bad, or that CI was good or bad. But striking down laws based on newer laws because of older laws (or the const) is not ... abnormal.

imo, it's pretty well settled that the 1917 changes were not supposed to be another hurdle, but instead was supposed to make extending the limit easier. So, using the 14th's provision the debt will not be questioned to overturn the 1917 law makes some logical sense. Although, imo, the way its supposed to work is that the dems shove the debt limit up the gop's rear end every chance they get ... too. That way the gop will want to change the law too. Or in theory anyway. I think the freedom caucus really does want to default and use a depression to reduce the govt's size. It won't work though. People are not going to accept soc sec not being fully paid.

 

[Mac1958]

Congress is Constitutionally bound to care for the general welfare of the United States. House Republicans are trying to make this a political football. Well fuck that! We will not negotiate with Congressional terrorists.

You need to stop voting for fucked up pieces of shit!

It appears that the rubes are under the impression that the GQP was somehow REQUIRED to do this, to hold the debt hostage. I guess they think it’s the normal part of the process.

This mix of arrogance, ignorance and cultism just hasn’t been seen.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL. Then don't negotiate.

Then raise the debt ceiling and stop jacking us around!

 

[Billo_Really]

It appears that the rubes are under the impression that the GQP was somehow REQUIRED to do this, to hold the debt hostage. I guess they think it’s the normal part of the process.

This mix of arrogance, ignorance and cultism just hasn’t been seen.

That's because the MAGA's, are dumber than the Tea Party!

 

[BlindBoo]

All I can respond back to that is the truth and the facts, which is what the left claim they are for. Republicans in the House have already passed a debt ceiling increase. It's now up to Schumer's senate and Biden to pass it into law to avert the crisis. If they don't then it is on them.

With unspecified cuts to already approved laws exclusively from the social safety net. Not going to pass in the Senate. The Neo GOP can try to pass some new laws that cuts programs that have already been approved and are laws. If they force a default or another credit downgrade, most independent voters will blame the no so free, freedom caucus and the New Trumpybear Republicans.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Could you name a few who you think deserve to be re-elected, or do you just want a revolving door which never stops?

Here is an odd way I'd like things to work. Now bear with me here. (And yes it would take a Constitutional amendment, which will never happen.)

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current Federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any Federally elected office.
.
.
.
.
There would be no term limits on Presidents or members of Congress, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any Federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no "incumbent" advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

Congress is Constitutionally bound to care for the general welfare of the United States. House Republicans are trying to make this a political football. Well fuck that! We will not negotiate with Congressional terrorists.

You need to stop voting for fucked up pieces of shit!

Every issue in Congress is a political football. On both sides.

 

[bendog]

It appears that the rubes are under the impression that the GQP was somehow REQUIRED to do this, to hold the debt hostage. I guess they think it’s the normal part of the process.

This mix of arrogance, ignorance and cultism just hasn’t been seen.

When the dems retook the house in 18, they could have held up every spending bill that did not undo the 2017 tax cuts, then imo there'd be a factual comparison of similar actions. And obviously, Pelosi chose not to do that. And now McCarthy is playing a game the dems have not ... until now ... engaged in.

But Biden has a different consideration than just gop truculence. Pulling back some unspent stimulus funds and even work requirements that would reduce govt spending could increase his chances of seeing an economy in late 23 and early 24 that would not doom his reelection.

 

[kaz]

What you are calling "Russian roulette" was the frog staying in the water with slowly escalating temperature. You didn't deal with the crisis, you only put it off longer.

Since you're at 31 trillion you want to dump on your kids and growing of our debts to dump on our children, how much are you OK with dumping on them? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?

So BlindBoo , you didn't answer my question

 

[kaz]

You are talking to a brick wall. The left believe the debt never needs to be paid back so the amount really doesn't matter. 200 trillion? 500 trillion? It's all the same to them.

Then when Republicans are in power, they are suddenly libertarians about spending and we can't afford a dime in extra spending

 

[Billo_Really]

Every issue in Congress is a political football. On both sides.

I prefer to think more of that occurs on the right side of the aisle.

 

[BlindBoo]

So BlindBoo , you didn't answer my question

You mean it's the GOP and the Dems that have us at 31T in debt. What do you do to an engine to keep the RPM under the redline. Limiters or Governors.

Is it "Congress's" Constitutional Duty To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

Said the financial neophyte. When taxes are over 10%, tax cuts always pay for themselves. Government gets the most revenue with 10% taxes because people think they are fair and avoid them. When they raise above 10%. it jacks up the economic damage and provide no more revenue. I'd recommend...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[kaz]

You mean it's the GOP and the Dems that have us at 31T in debt. What do you do to an engine to keep the RPM under the redline. Limiters or Governors.

Is it "Congress's" Constitutional Duty To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

Said the financial neophyte. When taxes are over 10%, tax cuts always pay for themselves. Government gets the most revenue with 10% taxes because people think they are fair and avoid them. When they raise above 10%. it jacks up the economic damage and provide no more revenue. I'd recommend...

www.usmessageboard.com

Sure, the Republicans suck, but all my life every year it's the Democrats wanting to spend more than they do. And now it's trillions a year more. And now, Republicans want to reduce spending and you and your party don't ... again.

So answer the question, how many trillion should we dump on our kids? 31 doesn't make you blink, you want more. I'm asking how much more is acceptable for our kids to pay for us?

 

[Mac-7]

Again the language in the constitution is vague. Meaning that it's open to interpretation.

I dislike these gimmicky solutions to fundamental problems.

Having said that I dislike not paying back bonds, or destroying everybody's 401k, or demolishing social security, or a global depression, or any of a 100 foreseen or unforseen consequences of a default. That's why avoid risking it on ambiguous law is worth it.

The legislative branch has the power of the purse. I agree with that even when I vehemently disagree with how they sometimes use it. This however is not about the power of the purse.

This is about one Congress REFUSING to take responsibility for what ALL previous Congresses did, in the process hurting the entire world. That is NOT ok. And I dare you to argue against it.

It wont be as bad as the big government libs tell us

Biden refuses to budge an inch because history says he wont have to

But he could and should compromise

 

[bendog]

With unspecified cuts to already approved laws exclusively from the social safety net. Not going to pass in the Senate. The Neo GOP can try to pass some new laws that cuts programs that have already been approved and are laws. If they force a default or another credit downgrade, most independent voters will blame the no so free, freedom caucus and the New Trumpybear Republicans.

The gop will never specify the cuts because, as we all know unless we are dishonest, the voters will revolt ... and we aren't even to cutting soc sec benefits yet. And, I'm talking GOP VOTERS.

I think Biden's offered to agree on specific proposals that would require less govt spending in the future (less newly created money in circulation). The D legislators are probably unhappy. But ... they have no options.

McCarthy apparently didn't get enough to pass the debt hike with what he got. That is, a maj of House gopers might buy into it so they could declare victory and move on, but the Freedom Caucus would prefer to blow up the econ to see if default can be "managed" to reduce spending further. So they can cut taxes more for the 1%!!! Happy days are here again ....