• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Default averted? Announcement to be made at noon

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jaskalas said:
I make a simple statement in what you quoted. Constitution > anything Congress can do short of a new Constitutional Amendment. Do you dare refute that?

Check your emotions before spouting such rubbish.
Click to expand...

You're totally clueless. There are all sorts of cases and legal precedents and interpretations of the Constitution and their amendments. Those are what guide what is legal and Constitutional, not merely the (purposefully) vague wording of the Constitution. Simply listing a few words of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not actually support your case, because you fail to cite the lack of legal precedent for debt ceiling increases by Presidential fiat, in addition to the numerous market implications of such a move. You don't tread into uncharted legal waters when US debt creditworthiness is involved. It's asinine beyond belief and nowhere near legally clear. That's one of the many reasons a president hasn't ever actually raised the debt limit by himself.
 
glenn1 said:
The announcement indicates the shutdown will continue but not at what spending level. The 2014 round of sequester cuts weren't mentioned as being included as part of the deal either, so it would seem those were left in place. So the agreement would seem to lock in (by inaction) the FY2014 sequester cuts of $54.7B to non-defense discretionary spending, or about 7.2%. The sequester cuts could of course be modified in the next couple of months, but the default is they'll happen unless an agreement is concluded to the contrary. And we get to have the debt ceiling conversation again in a couple months.


http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/06/guide-2014-sequester
Click to expand...

The sequester cuts going out many years are locked in; this deal paves the way for a budget conference that will clearly end the sequester cuts starting in 2014. Get ready for it.
 
First said:
Dumbest statement of the century. The Constitution is law. I'm not sure you understand how our legal system works.



No, false. The debt limit is about paying prior debts.

Fact: not paying principal is a technical default, even if you're paying interest. Deal with that reality however you like, but no bullshit about the 14th Amendment will change that.
Click to expand...

My interest-only HELOC disagrees with you.
 
glenn1 said:
True. Mainly because he's far more responsible about his debt than the politicians in Washington will ever be about our national debt.
Click to expand...

If this accurately reflects the type of thinking that elects teabaggers (home equity = national debt), then the incompetence in Congress is making far more sense to me.
 
zinfamous said:
If this accurately reflects the type of thinking that elects teabaggers (home equity = national debt), then the incompetence in Congress is making far more sense to me.
Click to expand...

You mean like borrowing for stimulus like in economic downturns when only the government has the money to move things along? I tried getting a mortgage when I was broke but the bank laughed at me.
 
First said:
The sequester cuts going out many years are locked in; this deal paves the way for a budget conference that will clearly end the sequester cuts starting in 2014. Get ready for it.
Click to expand...

How will a budget conference end the sequester cuts. 😕

We have seen how far the existing proposed budgets have lasted?

This is only coming out of the Senate; it does not include the House.
Unless you are expecting the Senate to rubber stamp the House proposed budget .... :\
 
Moonbeam said:
You mean like borrowing for stimulus like in economic downturns when only the government has the money to move things along? I tried getting a mortgage when I was broke but the bank laughed at me.
Click to expand...

You did not go to the proper bank; there was one out there that would have loaned you the money. Maybe not at a reasonable rate from your perspective.
But you could have gotten a loan; eating noodles and tuna for the next 20 years will do wonders on your diet.
 
EagleKeeper said:
How will a budget conference end the sequester cuts. 😕

We have seen how far the existing proposed budgets have lasted?

This is only coming out of the Senate; it does not include the House.
Unless you are expecting the Senate to rubber stamp the House proposed budget .... :\
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how budget conferences work. Unless there's something in this emerging Senate bill that changes normal routine, the House and Senate conferees will get together and hash out the differences in the Murray budget and Ryan budget passed out of those chambers. Patty Murray assumed non-sequester budget levels in the Senate budget, Ryan's budget assumed they would stay in place (well, sort of). The whole point of the conferees is to compromise, so they'll end the previously agreed to 2011 Budget Control Act spending levels by raising spending beyond the current 2014 level mandated in the Budget Control Act i.e. sequestration, though probably not as high as Murray's request obviously. They'll also be other entitlement reforms in the mix presumably, as Republicans will want something in return for ending the sequester.
 
First said:
You're totally clueless. There are all sorts of cases and legal precedents and interpretations of the Constitution and their amendments. Those are what guide what is legal and Constitutional, not merely the (purposefully) vague wording of the Constitution. Simply listing a few words of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not actually support your case, because you fail to cite the lack of legal precedent for debt ceiling increases by Presidential fiat, in addition to the numerous market implications of such a move. You don't tread into uncharted legal waters when US debt creditworthiness is involved. It's asinine beyond belief and nowhere near legally clear. That's one of the many reasons a president hasn't ever actually raised the debt limit by himself.
Click to expand...
because you fail to cite the lack of legal precedent for debt ceiling increases by Presidential fiat
Click to expand...

It is not a debt ceiling increase for the United States to simply pay off what Congress previously budgeted.

As the 14th states, that debt shall not be questioned. Hence it will be paid and anyone who acts against that payment would violate the Constitution.
 
Jaskalas said:
Because Constitution trumps law. The public debt shall not be questioned.

From this I derive that Congress cannot interfere with servicing the debt. Thus the "debt limit" is nothing more than the prohibition of issuing new debt. It's a budget battle, not a "default on your debt" battle.
Click to expand...

it says shall not be questioned in section 4. and then in section 5 says explicitly that congress has the exclusive ability to act in servicing the previous sections... including section 4, regarding public debt.

why is this so hard for you to understand? you cannot take sections 1-4 without section 5.
 
Fayd said:
it says shall not be questioned in section 4. and then in section 5 says explicitly that congress has the exclusive ability to act in servicing the previous sections... including section 4, regarding public debt.

why is this so hard for you to understand? you cannot take sections 1-4 without section 5.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who added the word exclusive.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...
That merely authorizes Congress to make good on the debt.

This whole matter is expressly designed to Constitutionally prevent default.
 
Jaskalas said:
It is not a debt ceiling increase for the United States to simply pay off what Congress previously budgeted.
Click to expand...

The US is not legally capable of paying off prior bonds/debts without a debt ceiling increase. Get it through your thick skull; they can't pay principal on debt past the current debt ceiling of $16.7T (or whatever it is precisely) without it being raised. Now, they could potentially stop paying government workers again, which is exactly the same as shutting down the government. But that would only be temporary and exceedingly stupid to boot.

As the 14th states, that debt shall not be questioned. Hence it will be paid and anyone who acts against that payment would violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You can repeat that all you like, your point is weak and moot; there are no precedents for POTUS unilaterally raising the debt ceiling and, to boot, there are conflicting laws stating that spending originate with Congress. It's legally treacherous and irresponsible. Not even an arguable point if you're at all informed.
 
They were never going to default though. They can't and that would seriously cause trouble for the US. I had suspected they were going to come up with a deal at the last minute.

They still haven't resolved the real problem which is the spending that needs to be cut.
 
Incorruptible said:
They were never going to default though. They can't and that would seriously cause trouble for the US. I had suspected they were going to come up with a deal at the last minute.

They still haven't resolved the real problem which is the spending that needs to be cut.
Click to expand...

Surely you won't accept Armageddon vicariously? Don't you really really long for the real thing? I know you better than you can imagine.
 
Incorruptible said:
Just skipped right over that. No point wasting time with you.
Click to expand...

What you failed to skip over was how important it was to you to tell me how unimportant I am. Nobody makes a bigger fool of you than you do.

Please oh please go away and let me have the last word. My ego needs it desperately.
 
DominionSeraph said:
I can't believe they let it work. The Tea Party just kept asking for more, and more, and more, and more, and the Democrats finally caved in and let them have everything just to get them to stop. By this time tomorrow we'll live in a country where women don't have the right to vote, slavery is reenacted, and it will be the official religion of the United States that Jesus was a white American of European descent who spoke English and praised the innate holiness of the wealthy.

Oh, wait, I think I got something backwards.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be great? We could hang deviants, and beat stupid children as well.
 
First said:
The US is not legally capable of paying off prior bonds/debts without a debt ceiling increase.
-snip-
Click to expand...

Just wow.

The US can (and does during such times as these) legally pay off old debt coming due by rolling it over into debt.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top