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.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
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.

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.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
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

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.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
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.

My interest-only HELOC disagrees with you.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Ugh, yes the national debt is just like your home equity loan.


Please.

True. Mainly because he's far more responsible about his debt than the politicians in Washington will ever be about our national debt.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,099
146
True. Mainly because he's far more responsible about his debt than the politicians in Washington will ever be about our national debt.

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.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
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.

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.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
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.

How will a budget conference end the sequester cuts. :confused:

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 .... :\
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
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.

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.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
How will a budget conference end the sequester cuts. :confused:

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 .... :\

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.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
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.
because you fail to cite the lack of legal precedent for debt ceiling increases by Presidential fiat

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.
 

Fayd

Diamond Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,971
2
76
www.manwhoring.com
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.

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.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
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.

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.
That merely authorizes Congress to make good on the debt.

This whole matter is expressly designed to Constitutionally prevent default.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It is not a debt ceiling increase for the United States to simply pay off what Congress previously budgeted.

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.

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.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
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.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
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.

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.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Just skipped right over that. No point wasting time with you.

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.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
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.

Wouldn't that be great? We could hang deviants, and beat stupid children as well.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The US is not legally capable of paying off prior bonds/debts without a debt ceiling increase.
-snip-

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