U.S. Politics

[Asarlai]

Who would want Bieber, Cocain, or Heroin?

Someone already on cocain and heroin?

[Xenophon]

It is literally unconstitutional to not raise the debt ceiling. What did we elect the President for, if not to have power to enforce the Constitution and run the country?

No, it's literally unconstitutional to call into question the validity of the public debt. From there to raising the debt ceiling takes a lot of steps.

[Asarlai]

No, it's literally unconstitutional to call into question the validity of the public debt. From there to raising the debt ceiling takes a lot of steps.

So defaulting does not call into question the validity of the public debt?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Asarlai,

But if the only way to pay existing debt is to incurr more debt you have a problem of contradiction. Section 4 of the 14th amendment requires the nation to pay debt "authorized by law". Until Congress raises the debt limit new debt is not authorized even if it is used to pay existing debt.

[Selmy]

If Obama is forced to use executive powers with the Treasury to prevent a default, I'm not even sure that Boehner would attempt to impeach.

The issue at hand as I see it is that Boehner simply doesn't have control of his caucus. He can't really discuss anything with Reid or Obama, because he knows that any sort of compromise won't float with the Tea Party.

I'm sure that if Obama does something, there will be rumbling from the Tea Party, but I think Boehner is politically savvy enough to know it's a road he doesn't want to go down, especially when at the end he knows he can't win.

I still think that regardless of what happens here, Obama is pretty safe next November. He can easily out raise any Republican contender and no real electable threat has show his or herself.

Mitt Romney is probably the best option, but he doesn't energize the Republican base at all.

Michelle Bachmann has the Tea Party backing, but objectively speaking, she's fucking nuts and if she ends up as a frontrunner she would terrify independent voters.

Rick Perry is possible, but we won't know if he's running for at least another month and it's not clear how much the country wants another conservative Texas governor.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Scot, that's exactly right. The only reasonable interpretation of that clause, in this context, is that debt service gets priority if limited funds are available. It doesn't mean that the President has unilateral authority to issue new debt to pay non-public debt related authorizations.

[Atreides]

Rush Limbaugh's at it again.

“So for Colbert King to say, ‘Rush Limbaugh, his biggest concern was Republicans should do nothing to help Obama.’ Damn right. Damn right. Helping Obama hurts the country.”

— Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host, July 25

According to Rush, the country can only be saved by defeating Obama. If avoiding default would help the president, better to default. Ditto for whatever else Obama proposes. Isn't it nice when an influential man has dedicated his career to hindering the president of his country? If Obama proposed sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, corporations, and endorsed the entire Republican platform I'm not sure that Limbaugh would give up. I also don't recall any Democratic media personalities this so entirely devoted to destroying Bush during his presidency.

[Smashing Young Man]

I would say that we would have to...or risk global financial meltdown.

I think people may be surprised at just how untrue this is if it comes down to it.

[Commodore]

future president

[TheKassi]

The guy has passion and talking points but little else. His speech seemed centered around the concept that it is the President's job to propose and pass legislation. That is his job, and the job of his colleagues, not Obama's or either Bush or Clinton's. If the President had been vetoing legislation passed to address the issue left and right, he would have a point. That however has not been the case, making his speech little more then a rant about how his impotency isn't his fault.

The Democratic party is the party of remorseful impotence. If he is going to carry that quality to the head of the GOP by becoming their nominee for the presidency, we should put both parties down right now. It is only truly humane thing to do.

[Fenryng]

Perhaps this was covered in the last thread.

Could someone please explain to me why anyone would feel it necessary to put forth a proposal for a constitutional amendment to do something that tens of millions of individual households succeed at?

Yes, there are households that don't, which is a small component of why this country is in the condition it is in.

Regardless of what political affiliation a person belongs to, shouldn't having a balanced budget be something that everyone should want?

Anyone who says that they want Obama to fail is stating, in a roundabout way, that they want the contry to fail. Why should Rush Limbaugh care; he has all the millions he needs to go the rest of his life without working, if he was smart about it.

[Galactus]

Perhaps this was covered in the last thread.

Could someone please explain to me why anyone would feel it necessary to put forth a proposal for a constitutional amendment to do something that tens of millions of individual households succeed at?

Yes, there are households that don't, which is a small component of why this country is in the condition it is in.

Regardless of what political affiliation a person belongs to, shouldn't having a balanced budget be something that everyone should want?

Anyone who says that they want Obama to fail is stating, in a roundabout way, that they want the contry to fail. Why should Rush Limbaugh care; he has all the millions he needs to go the rest of his life without working, if he was smart about it.

Because it is too inflexible: Sometimes you really need to take a big loan for a major investment. (Like say, buying a house, or in the case of the US, fighting a war or relieving a disaster)

[Fenryng]

Because it is too inflexible: Sometimes you really need to take a big loan for a major investment. (Like say, buying a house, or in the case of the US, fighting a war or relieving a disaster)

What does taking a loan have to do with being able to balance your budget? Unless you are talking about a situation where a default on a mortgage happens because someone lost their job, which is not something that can necessarily be controlled. You can, however, try to plan to an extent for that possibility to help stave off the problems what would occur from that.

[Galactus]

What does taking a loan have to do with being able to balance your budget? Unless you are talking about a situation where a default on a mortgage happens because someone lost their job, which is not something that can necessarily be controlled. You can, however, try to plan to an extent for that possibility to help stave off the problems what would occur from that.

Err, because that's what a balanced budget means. If you're taking a loan that means your expenditures aren't covered by your revenues. (otherwise why borrow?) and hence your budget is "imbalanced".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

But, presumably, you can make your payments on that loan from existing income. You don't need to take out more loans to pay your existing loans. A "balanced budget" means incomekng funds meet or exceed payments out.

[Galactus]

Galactus,

But, presumably, you can make your payments on that loan from existing income. You don't need to take out more loans to pay hour existing loans. A "balanced budget" means incomekng funds meet or exceed payments out.

Budgets are passed for a year, correct? The assumption would then be that the income from said year must cover the expenses of that year, no? Otherwise the budget isn't balanced.

States have to take loans occasionally, and it's not always practical to repay the within a year. (or even a decade). Wars are the most obvious examples. (wars are to a large extent determined by money, and if one side borrows and the other side doesen't then you can kind of see an imbalanced there)

Borrowing is, essentially, staking future revenues to meet immediate goals. The thing is, credit can be used to do things now that will improve your situation in the future. From an economic POV money now is generally better than money later, because money now can be used to make money in the time between now and later, while money later is inert until well, you get to later.

It's often more efficient to borrow and fix something early than wait to collect revenue and then fix it later when it has deteriorated further.

EDIT: In practice an imbalanced budget means that you borrow to cover up the revenue shortfall. This may or may no be a prudent strategy depending on the situation, but is not an arrow that soul be removed from the quiver.

[TheKassi]

Galactus,

But, presumably, you can make your payments on that loan from existing income. You don't need to take out more loans to pay your existing loans. A "balanced budget" means incomekng funds meet or exceed payments out.

Is that how you think a balanced budget amendment would be worded? America can take out a five trillion dollar loan so long as it currently has a surplus sufficient to pay it off over thirty years?

A balanced budget amendment is boneheaded unless America changes it's views on what government should be doing. If you want America to be in the vanguard of another overseas conflict, assist in natural or ecological disasters, and enforce laws that have nothing to do with fraud, theft, or violation of an individual's person, it needs the ability to borrow money it is unlikely to pay back for decades. Factor things in like any form of safety net, and you have reached outright silliness.

I am all for capping government at a trillion dollar budget, adjusted for inflation of course, but it still needs the ability to borrow in the event of invasion or disaster. America was a rather small force in the last World War, and we still took on massive debt fielding that force. If we ever again plan on going to war against a government besides Mexico, we would either need to raise the tax rate to one hundred percent, or engage in heavy borrowing.

[Selmy]

Perhaps this was covered in the last thread.

Could someone please explain to me why anyone would feel it necessary to put forth a proposal for a constitutional amendment to do something that tens of millions of individual households succeed at?

Yes, there are households that don't, which is a small component of why this country is in the condition it is in.

Regardless of what political affiliation a person belongs to, shouldn't having a balanced budget be something that everyone should want?

Anyone who says that they want Obama to fail is stating, in a roundabout way, that they want the contry to fail. Why should Rush Limbaugh care; he has all the millions he needs to go the rest of his life without working, if he was smart about it.

A BBA is a bad idea because issues come up all the time that require a government to spend money.

If for example the stimulus wasn't allowed to pass because it would have violated a BBA or if we had a long drawn out political debate about it, we would most likely be in a much worse financial situation.

[The Marquis de Leech]

In addition to the massive inflexibility of a balanced budget amendment, you'd also have the problem of recessions. Recessions mean less tax revenue, so a balanced budget amendment would require increased taxes/spending cuts during a recession. Which makes the recession worse. Which means less tax revenue. Rinse and repeat.

[Fenryng]

Okay, so here is another question that may have been in the last thread; if so, apologies.

I keep reading about making cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I work in a hospital, so I know that the latter two have been on the hospital administration's radar for quite some time, in terms of the problems there.

What I have NOT been reading, is cutting the federal defense budget. I am under the impression that the government could possibly save mass amounts there. Has this been on the table as an option, and I have missed it? Is there the money in the defense budget alone to cut that would make everyone happy? I am presuming that the Republicans, who I believe to be the bastions of defense spending, would even consider this possibility....