Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

[K1052]

McCarthy is apparently speaking to Wall Street today to talk about the Republican "plan" to deal with problem created by moronic Republican brinkmanship. Though, why anyone would believe anything he puts forward is beyond me: just a complete clown of a speaker with little real power to control his caucus.

The way republicans are talking about their own internal progress on this doesn't so far indicate they will come to consensus even amongst themselves. A "roadmap to begin negotiations" potentialy weeks out from a default isn't shit.

 

[brycejones]

McCarthy is apparently speaking to Wall Street today to talk about the Republican "plan" to deal with problem created by moronic Republican brinkmanship. Though, why anyone would believe anything he puts forward is beyond me: just a complete clown of a speaker with little real power to control his caucus.

I'm expecting him to generally talk about "we need budget cuts" but to continue to refuse to detail anything they will actually cut.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm expecting him to generally talk about "we need budget cuts" but to continue to refuse to detail anything they will actually cut.

Yep. He made a proposal that should be dead before it even left his little lips: one year increase combined with spending cuts. One year, so we can do this nonsense all over again...

McCarthy Proposes One-Year Debt Ceiling Increase Tied to Spending Cuts https://nyti.ms/3L5HfJj

 

[fskimospy]

Yep. He made a proposal that should be dead before it even left his little lips: one year increase combined with spending cuts. One year, so we can do this nonsense all over again...

McCarthy Proposes One-Year Debt Ceiling Increase Tied to Spending Cuts https://nyti.ms/3L5HfJj

This is the exact same playbook they've run before - hard no. I would just respond with 'this is a recipe for doing this same brink of default nonsense every year and that's irresponsible.'

 

[sdifox]

I still don't understand why this is still around. Congress decided on a budget, if you need more money, you print it. WTF is debt ceiling other than overuling of the budget?

 

[fskimospy]

I still don't understand why this is still around. Congress decided on a budget, if you need more money, you print it. WTF is debt ceiling other than overuling of the budget?

It's essentially Congress passing two laws that mandate the executive branch engage in mutually exclusive actions:

1) You must spend $X.
2) You are not permitted to raise the funds to spend $X.

It serves no purpose and I think it is pretty clearly unconstitutional. It should have been abolished a long time ago but you know what they say - the best time was decades ago but the second best time is today.

 

[sdifox]

It's essentially Congress passing two laws that mandate the executive branch engage in mutually exclusive actions:

1) You must spend $X.
2) You are not permitted to raise the funds to spend $X.

It serves no purpose and I think it is pretty clearly unconstitutional. It should have been abolished a long time ago but you know what they say - the best time was decades ago but the second best time is today.

Like I said, it's stupid, you already control the budget, why why create another red tape to hamper implementation of the budget?

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said, it's stupid, you already control the budget, why why create another red tape to hamper implementation of the budget?

In the past it was because Congress found it convenient. Generally speaking the public hates government spending in general but loves it in the particular. Back before 2011 the debt ceiling was nothing more than a formality because everyone knew that breaching it would be a pointless, self-inflicted catastrophe but what you COULD do is get yourself some good headlines and good 'fiscal discipline' vibes by railing against government spending before voting to raise it.

Unfortunately in 2011 some pretty crazy people got into power for Republicans and Obama foolishly gave into their blackmail so Republicans took this to mean the debt ceiling was, to quote them, 'a hostage worth taking'. Ever since then Republicans have repeatedly tried to take it hostage. Biden needs to declare the debt limit unconstitutional, ignore it, and end this threat to the world economy once and for all.

 

[woolfe9998]

Biden needs to declare the debt limit unconstitutional, ignore it, and end this threat to the world economy once and for all.

If he doesn't get a court order first, then he'd have to deal with it in court after he did that. I can't imagine that the current SCOTUS would go along with him. Whether the debt ceiling is Constitutional under the 14a's debt clause is debatable.

 

[fskimospy]

If he doesn't get a court order first, then he'd have to deal with it in court after he did that. I can't imagine that the current SCOTUS would go along with him. Whether the debt ceiling is Constitutional under the 14a's debt clause is debatable.

Yes, exactly, and that's what he should do.

SCOTUS will have a choice of whether it wants to crash the world economy or not. I bet it doesn't. The alternative is a nearly inevitable default sometime in the future.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yes, exactly, and that's what he should do.

SCOTUS will have a choice of whether it wants to crash the world economy or not. I bet it doesn't. The alternative is a nearly inevitable default sometime in the future.

You are betting that SCOTUS will ignore what the Constitution says directly and unambiguously. I don't think this one, or any other, will. The Constitution says that only Congress will set the budget, and only Congress will decide how to pay for it.

SCOTUS can't compel congress to vote on any specific way on any specific bill, and like it or not the budget did not detail how to pay for itself. We need a bill telling the Treasury how to pay for our debt. The Constitution clearly says that it can't do so without Congresses specific say so.

The only thing I can see SCOTUS doing is declaring that any budget that does not include how to pay for itself to be unconstitutional. Then not only do we default, we end up in a crisis where the government no longer has a operating budget. But it would fix the problem for the future.

 

[MrSquished]

You are betting that SCOTUS will ignore what the Constitution says directly and unambiguously. I don't think this one, or any other, will. The Constitution says that only Congress will set the budget, and only Congress will decide how to pay for it.

SCOTUS can't compel congress to vote on any specific way on any specific bill, and like it or not the budget did not detail how to pay for itself. We need a bill telling the Treasury how to pay for our debt. The Constitution clearly says that it can't do so without Congresses specific say so.

The only thing I can see SCOTUS doing is declaring that any budget that does not include how to pay for itself to be unconstitutional. Then not only do we default, we end up in a crisis where the government no longer has a operating budget. But it would fix the problem for the future.

some people still have faith in institutions and people that one should no longer have any faith in at all

 

[fskimospy]

You are betting that SCOTUS will ignore what the Constitution says directly and unambiguously. I don't think this one, or any other, will. The Constitution says that only Congress will set the budget, and only Congress will decide how to pay for it.

SCOTUS can't compel congress to vote on any specific way on any specific bill, and like it or not the budget did not detail how to pay for itself. We need a bill telling the Treasury how to pay for our debt. The Constitution clearly says that it can't do so without Congresses specific say so.

The only thing I can see SCOTUS doing is declaring that any budget that does not include how to pay for itself to be unconstitutional. Then not only do we default, we end up in a crisis where the government no longer has an operating budget. But it would fix the problem for the future.

No, I am saying SCOTUS should not ignore what the constitution says directly and unambiguously - that the debt of the country shall not be questioned.

As far as spending goes this is also wrong. It says spending bills will originate in the House and that Congress controls what money is spent on. This is in fact exactly what Congress did when it told Biden to spend money on various programs. In fact, if Biden did NOT continue spending this money he would be in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws. The Constitution demands that Biden ignore the debt limit.

 

[fskimospy]

Congress has given Biden two mutually contradictory assignments. Biden should simply choose the one that doesn’t result in a global financial catastrophe and which comports with the 14th amendment.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, I am saying SCOTUS should not ignore what the constitution says directly and unambiguously - that the debt of the country shall not be questioned.

That is what the Constitution says, but there is no way for SCOTUS to enforce it. It can tell Congress that they must pay their bills, but it can not tell Congress how to pay the bills. The Budget did not detail how to pay the bills. That is what the debt celling bill is about, how to pay the bills. Yes, almost always Congress just tells the Treasury to pay the bills in the way it sees best, but they must pass a bill saying that. SCOTUS can't force them to vote yes on that bill.

As far as spending goes this is also wrong. It says spending bills will originate in the House and that Congress controls what money is spent on. This is in fact exactly what Congress did when it told Biden to spend money on various programs. In fact, if Biden did NOT continue spending this money he would be in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws. The Constitution demands that Biden ignore the debt limit.

Correct, but it dis not give the Treasury instructions on how to settle the debts, and SCOUS can not just make that up without taking away the power of the purse from Congress.
Spending is not the same as paying. Putting a bill on a credit card is not the same as paying that bill.

 

[fskimospy]

That is what the Constitution says, but there is no way for SCOTUS to enforce it. It can tell Congress that they must pay their bills, but it can not tell Congress how to pay the bills. The Budget did not detail how to pay the bills. That is what the debt celling bill is about, how to pay the bills. Yes, almost always Congress just tells the Treasury to pay the bills in the way it sees best, but they must pass a bill saying that. SCOTUS can't force them to vote yes on that bill.


Correct, but it dis not give the Treasury instructions on how to settle the debts, and SCOUS can not just make that up without taking away the power of the purse from Congress.
Spending is not the same as paying. Putting a bill on a credit card is not the same as paying that bill.

The following things are facts:
1) Congress requires Biden to spend $X.
2) Congress also requires Biden not raise the funds to spend $X
3) The Constitution prohibits Congress or anyone else from causing the debt of the US to be questioned.

Given that Congress has given Biden mutually conflicting instructions and one of those instructions requires him and Congress to violate the 14th amendment this is simple. Biden should ignore the debt ceiling. SCOTUS will not do shit because Biden would be right.

Congress still has the power of the purse. Biden can only spend the money it appropriates. If Republicans want to zero out all federal spending all they have to do is pass legislation that says that. Until that day comes though Biden must comply with the law and the Constitution and ignore the debt limit.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The following things are facts:
1) Congress requires Biden to spend $X.
2) Congress also requires Biden not raise the funds to spend $X
3) The Constitution prohibits Congress or anyone else from causing the debt of the US to be questioned.

Given that Congress has given Biden mutually conflicting instructions and one of those instructions requires him and Congress to violate the 14th amendment this is simple. Biden should ignore the debt ceiling. SCOTUS will not do shit because Biden would be right.

Congress still has the power of the purse. Biden can only spend the money it appropriates. If Republicans want to zero out all federal spending all they have to do is pass legislation that says that. Until that day comes though Biden must comply with the law and the Constitution and ignore the debt limit.

You seem to be confusing spending with paying. The two are not linked in government. Biden could keep spending, up to what was budgeted, but that will not stop us from defaulting on our debt.
Biden can not tell the Treasury to pay the debt. So, if the debt celling is not raised by Congress then we go in default no matter what Biden does.

Minting the coin might be a work around. But it is a one time deal because Congress will close that loophole, and it might not even work that one time. It would be a pretty big gamble.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to be confusing spending with paying. The two are not linked in government. Biden could keep spending, up to what was budgeted, but that will not stop us from defaulting on our debt.
Biden can not tell the Treasury to pay the debt. So, if the debt celling is not raised by Congress then we go in default no matter what Biden does.

Minting the coin might be a work around. But it is a one time deal because Congress will close that loophole, and it might not even work that one time. It would be a pretty big gamble.

I am not confusing the two. While they are not connected in legislation, for the purposes of governance they are very much connected. Without the ability to pay Biden cannot continue to spend because there’s no money to spend. Spending in the past that went beyond tax revenues was financed through debt auctions which would now be illegal. How is he continuing to spend without being able to raise funds to spend? Money he finds in the White House couch cushions? He cannot comply with both laws as they are mutually contradictory.

Biden can and should tell the treasury to continue debt auctions because it would be a violation of federal law to not spend what Congress has appropriated and it would be unconstitutional to act in ways that cause the US debt to be questioned. Since he must violate federal law either way, best to violate it in the service of averting a global financial calamity and not violating the Constitution.

As far as Congress closing the coin loophole I doubt it - you think they are going to get a veto proof majority for that? I doubt it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I am not confusing the two. While they are not connected in legislation, for the purposes of governance they are very much connected. Without the ability to pay Biden cannot continue to spend because there’s no money to spend. Spending in the past that went beyond tax revenues was financed through debt auctions which would now be illegal. How is he continuing to spend without being able to raise funds to spend? Money he finds in the White House couch cushions? He cannot comply with both laws as they are mutually contradictory.

Biden can and should tell the treasury to continue debt auctions because it would be a violation of federal law to not spend what Congress has appropriated and it would be unconstitutional to act in ways that cause the US debt to be questioned. Since he must violate federal law either way, best to violate it in the service of averting a global financial calamity and not violating the Constitution.

As far as Congress closing the coin loophole I doubt it - you think they are going to get a veto proof majority for that? I doubt it.

The Government does not have a big pile of cash that it hands out money from and when they hit the bottom of that pile they have to stop. That is just not how governmental budgets work. Government spending is much more like a credit card with a credit limit being whatever Congress set the current budget to. You can spend all of that credit without having to worry about how to repay it, you will just face the consequences later if you can't pay. Biden's job is to do just that. Put it all on the credit card and let Congress figure out how to pay that card off. He can't spend more or less than the allowance he had been given, and he can't pay off that card without Congresses say so.
The debt celling crises is not if he should spend the money in the budget, that money is already considered to have been spent, but how we are going to pay off the credit card. That the President has no say over at all.

Oh, and if he did find money in the White House couch it would belong to the government just like nearly everything else in the White House and he could not use it to pay off the debt either, it would have to go into the treasury and Congress could decide to use it or not as they see fit.

 

[fskimospy]

The Government does not have a big pile of cash that it hands out money from and when they hit the bottom of that pile they have to stop. That is just not how governmental budgets work. Government spending is much more like a credit card with a credit limit being whatever Congress set the current budget to. You can spend all of that credit without having to worry about how to repay it, you will just face the consequences later if you can't pay. Biden's job is to do just that. Put it all on the credit card and let Congress figure out how to pay that card off. He can't spend more or less than the allowance he had been given, and he can't pay off that card without Congresses say so.
The debt celling crises is not if he should spend the money in the budget, that money is already considered to have been spent, but how we are going to pay off the credit card. That the President has no say over at all.

The government doesn’t hand over cash immediately in most cases, that is true, but companies willingly run up invoices to be paid later because they know the government is good for it - there is no requirement they do that. What you are saying here is that to comply with appropriations bills Biden is required to comply with the federal government should commit mass fraud by incurring bills (‘spending’) it has no intention of paying and no ability to pay as the law prohibits payment.

This would also violate the 14th amendment as incurring debts you know you cannot pay off would obviously bring into question the validity of our debt so that’s a no go. The constitution does not permit Biden to act as you suggest here.

Oh, and if he did find money in the White House couch it would belong to the government just like nearly everything else in the White House and he could not use it to pay off the debt either, it would have to go into the treasury and Congress could decide to use it or not as they see fit.

Congress had already decided to use it. That’s what appropriations are. Congress can choose to stop funding things whenever it wants but it can’t prevent Biden from complying with the law and it can’t violate the constitution by forcing a default.

There is simply no way around it. As the law currently stands Congress has demanded Biden violate the 14th amendment by forcing him to spend money he is prohibited from raising. He should decline. In fact it is his duty to decline as his oath of office mandates it.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh also plenty of the bills the government pays are just cash coming out of a big pile like social security, salaries, etc. When that money is gone the checks stop, and stopping the checks is illegal.

What that would mean is it’s not just the debt ceiling ordering Biden to violate one law, it’s ordering him to violate dozens or hundreds of laws.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The government doesn’t hand over cash immediately in most cases, that is true, but companies willingly run up invoices to be paid later because they know the government is good for it - there is no requirement they do that. What you are saying here is that to comply with appropriations bills Biden is required to comply with the federal government should commit mass fraud by incurring bills (‘spending’) it has no intention of paying and no ability to pay as the law prohibits payment.

This would also violate the 14th amendment as incurring debts you know you cannot pay off would obviously bring into question the validity of our debt so that’s a no go. The constitution does not permit Biden to act as you suggest here.


Congress had already decided to use it. That’s what appropriations are. Congress can choose to stop funding things whenever it wants but it can’t prevent Biden from complying with the law and it can’t violate the constitution by forcing a default.

There is simply no way around it. As the law currently stands Congress has demanded Biden violate the 14th amendment by forcing him to spend money he is prohibited from raising. He should decline. In fact it is his duty to decline as his oath of office mandates it.

He is simply not allowed to pay the debt without Congress directly saying how to pay that debt, and Congress has not done so. If we go with your concept the only option he has is to just stop the government from spending any money whatsoever until Congress does pay it off. That would be disastrous.

 

[fskimospy]

He is simply not allowed to pay the debt without Congress directly saying how to pay that debt, and Congress has not done so. If we go with your concept the only option he has is to just stop the government from spending any money whatsoever until Congress does pay it off. That would be disastrous.

No, Biden is not allowed to stop spending money Congress has appropriated. That’s impoundment and impoundment is illegal.

Yes though, we agree that under your interpretation the federal government would be incurring debts it is prohibited from satisfying. It doesn’t matter that Congress might decide someday to satisfy them, it’s already too late. This violates the 14th amendment because doing that very obviously calls the validity of the government’s debt into question. So Biden not only must continue spending, he must continue issuing debt to finance that spending or finance it by other means like minting the coin or holding a White House yard sale. The only thing he can’t do is not pay those debts as the Constitution mandates it.

Again, Congress has given Biden two mutually exclusive obligations. He must incur debts and he must not raise the funds to satisfy them. This is unconstitutional. Really, all appropriations laws should be read as implicitly authorizing whatever financing is necessary to implement them as Congress isn’t allowed to do otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

One other important note is you’re right that Congress gets to choose how to finance the debt. Instead of issuing treasuries congress could instead raise taxes to cover the shortfall and choose to no longer issue debt. It could hold a bake sale too. The only thing Congress cannot do is not finance the debt at all, which is the case here.

 

[K1052]

Just deeply unserious people.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648394430506844161