Does the 14th Amendment compel the U.S. to pay it's debts?

[TerryMathews]

No! Validity means the debt is valid . Meaning; if it is not paid the character of the debt does not change form to some invalid state.
No one questions the validity of the debt for purposes of paying it but, rather, are there funds to pay what has been incurred. The 'Full Faith and Credit' clause deals with the States and not the National Debt, however, one could argue that there exists an unambiguous nexus between the States regarding each State's obligation toward another State's portion of debt (the persons of the various States) and that the central government is simply a conduit through which this obligation is satisfied and additionally, treaties among various Nations obligates payment of debt among those Nations (again, persons of the various Nations are the Nations)

I'd probably be laughed off the stage if I were to argue this but, non-the-less I do.

The Point, however, is: Do the acts of Congress mandate the accommodation of either payment or increases to the total debt obligation of the US. This, in my opinion is a no brainer... Of course it does. Either it is paid or it is owed and Congress must arrange for this. Congress cannot authorize without including the payment feature...

hehehe... If one has a premeditated notion to incur debt and not to pay it back it might fall under the fraud statutes... Congress can't intentionally defraud the people or the nations.... so unsightly a thing to do... and sick bird ... sick bird... (illegal)

Furthermore, the issue isn't the debts themselves but the method of payment. We are borrowing money from foreign sources to pay these debts.

Paying isn't the problem, borrowing is. Borrowing is and has always been the domain of Congress.

If Mr. Obama had a balanced budget, he would not need the debt ceiling raised.

 

[tweaker2]

In effect, Boehner tells Obama: "If you don't cut those entitlements for the middle class and the poor of which we won't ever publicly name for fear of losing our jobs, we're not gonna pay for all that and whatever else we ordered you to buy. See? I'm not stupid. Jus' who do you think I are? And Harry, go f*** yourself.....oh wait, I already said that didn't I?"

 

[Darwin333]

You know the feds actually don't print money. The U.S treasury is the one who prints money.

You know China doesn't actually send us boat loads of cash when they loan us money, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Furthermore, the issue isn't the debts themselves but the method of payment. We are borrowing money from foreign sources to pay these debts.

Paying isn't the problem, borrowing is. Borrowing is and has always been the domain of Congress.

If Mr. Obama had a balanced budget, he would not need the debt ceiling raised.

If Congress had passed appropriations bills that didn't require debt to be taken out to meet them, we would have a balanced budget.

Of course we would also be spiraling into a depression again, but who's counting?

 

[LunarRay]

Furthermore, the issue isn't the debts themselves but the method of payment. We are borrowing money from foreign sources to pay these debts.

Paying isn't the problem, borrowing is. Borrowing is and has always been the domain of Congress.

If Mr. Obama had a balanced budget, he would not need the debt ceiling raised.

A budget does not indicate the reality of tomorrow. It is simply a loose conduit or parameter of action. Obama submits a budget but it is the House where spending originates and if they originate say a mandate to go play war and it is not in the budget do we renegotiate the budget or go play war and pay for it if we can and default if we must?

My position is simply that what becomes law as far as spending goes must by logical connection either be paid to whomever is owed or we borrow from 'Peter to pay Paul' if we've not the funds to do so...

Keep in mind the National debt is comprised of two bits.... Public and Private.
The current account... our trade balance gets paid by the buyers and to the sellers ... sorta... by using our credit cards :+) or if a company they might get into issuing more bonds which are held by who ever wants holding them... etc.

For us to default on paying (in a manner of speaking) will make our debt service go bonkers and with it the debt service of our businesses and our people... Let's see... how do we spell real real real deep recession? Not just here but all over the place.... AND... our currency will no longer be the currency with which all sorts of stuff is denominated... Oil for instance...

So long as we can we should pay our national and foreign debts with our trade surplus (imagine that)... and we ought to - don't you think -borrow to do this if we have to... increasing the debt is the vehicle through which we sort out our recessions... and play our war games and our Congress critters know this as do their staffs... so what is all this jabber about... Is it for our consumption cuz we buy what ever our party folks say.... Maybe they want population control... with only the rich and upper middle class having the right to live and a world wide depression is a means to that end.

Let's go into hyper hyper inflation and pay down the debt using a penny on the dollar... or a mill for that matter... and start over... Oh... and isolate and build big walls around the nation.

 

[Balt]

It is my sincere hope that Obama circumvents Congress on the debt ceiling. It seems like he will have a number of different routes he can take to do so. Someone has to take this bomb out of the Republicans' hands because they aren't responsible enough to have it.

From a purely common sense perspective the debt ceiling nonsense doesn't fly anyway. Congress has directed the president to spend X dollars through appropriations bills. He must comply with that. Congress then denies him the ability to spend the money that they have compelled him to spend. They are basically giving incoherent and mutually exclusive commands. There's no particular reason why the debt ceiling law should take precedence over any of the other laws Congress has passed, so why follow that one and not the others?

Yep. They authorized the expenditure, so skipping out on the check is just nonsense. Obama seems to be taking a harder line this time. I think some in Congress are a bit butthurt that he "won" on the tax cut/hike issue, though, so we'll have to see what happens.

I think the "big money" both in this country and internationally have realized that the fiscal cliff (2 months delayed) and not paying our debt will affect them very negatively as well, so perhaps they'll start pressuring Congress to get something sensible done. 'Course, that won't affect some Tea Partiers who have nothing on their mind but re-election to their rural districts who think they are immune to the global economy.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yep. They authorized the expenditure, so skipping out on the check is just nonsense. Obama seems to be taking a harder line this time. I think some in Congress are a bit butthurt that he "won" on the tax cut/hike issue, though, so we'll have to see what happens.

I think the "big money" both in this country and internationally have realized that the fiscal cliff (2 months delayed) and not paying our debt will affect them very negatively as well, so perhaps they'll start pressuring Congress to get something sensible done. 'Course, that won't affect some Tea Partiers who have nothing on their mind but re-election to their rural districts who think they are immune to the global economy.

Do you not see a difference between paying and borrowing to pay?

 

[Jhhnn]

Furthermore, the issue isn't the debts themselves but the method of payment. We are borrowing money from foreign sources to pay these debts.

Paying isn't the problem, borrowing is. Borrowing is and has always been the domain of Congress.

If Mr. Obama had a balanced budget, he would not need the debt ceiling raised.

If Congress had passed appropriations bills that didn't require debt to be taken out to meet them, we would have a balanced budget.

Of course we would also be spiraling into a depression again, but who's counting?

Precisely. If Congress hadn't authorized the spending, it wouldn't have happened. They knew full well it demanded borrowing when they authorized the spending. If they want to borrow less, then they need to authorize less.

These contrived debt ceiling fracases are entirely the making of Congress, not the Obama Admin or any that preceded them. They are a form of extortion & blame shifting, just one of many ways Congressional Repubs attempt to deny responsibility for their own actions.

 

[TerryMathews]

Precisely. If Congress hadn't authorized the spending, it wouldn't have happened. They knew full well it demanded borrowing when they authorized the spending. If they want to borrow less, then they need to authorize less.

These contrived debt ceiling fracases are entirely the making of Congress, not the Obama Admin or any that preceded them. They are a form of extortion & blame shifting, just one of many ways Congressional Repubs attempt to deny responsibility for their own actions.

Prior to WW1, Congress had to authorize every single loan. The debt ceiling is an improvement.

I disagree with your analysis. Increasing the debt ceiling is not the only solution. There are other avenues including balancing the budget.

 

[Jhhnn]

Prior to WW1, Congress had to authorize every single loan. The debt ceiling is an improvement.

I disagree with your analysis. Increasing the debt ceiling is not the only solution. There are other avenues including balancing the budget.

More obfuscation & blame shifting. "Balancing the budget" isn't something the Executive branch can do. Only Congress can accomplish that. The time to deal with it isn't after appropriations have been made, but rather in the process of doing so. Anything else is dishonest.

 

[TerryMathews]

More obfuscation & blame shifting. "Balancing the budget" isn't something the Executive branch can do. Only Congress can accomplish that. The time to deal with it isn't after appropriations have been made, but rather in the process of doing so. Anything else is dishonest.

Of course you do, I expect nothing less from you.

The President is the head of the Democratic party. If he asked for a balanced budget he would have it.

He could also have had a line item veto back, if he wanted it. I mean, if they can pass that POS ACA they could have passed anything.

So again, I disagree with your assessment. Obama isn't some helpless little boy in the White House along for the ride. He doesn't have a balanced budget because he doesn't want one.

 

[Ryan]

Of course you do, I expect nothing less from you.

The President is the head of the Democratic party. If he asked for a balanced budget he would have it.

He could also have had a line item veto back, if he wanted it. I mean, if they can pass that POS ACA they could have passed anything.

So again, I disagree with your assessment. Obama isn't some helpless little boy in the White House along for the ride. He doesn't have a balanced budget because he doesn't want one.

Republicans can't even offer a realistic plan that balances the budget. Hell - Romney was shooting for the mid 2020's for his balanced budget, and that was with the most dubious math.

 

[Balt]

Do you not see a difference between paying and borrowing to pay?

Do you not see that when Congress passed the current budget/CR they knew it would require borrowing which would push us past the debt ceiling? Increasing the debt ceiling is nothing more than agreeing to pay the bill on expenditures we've already made. It's stupid and pointless.

 

[LunarRay]

Of course you do, I expect nothing less from you.

The President is the head of the Democratic party. If he asked for a balanced budget he would have it.

He could also have had a line item veto back, if he wanted it. I mean, if they can pass that POS ACA they could have passed anything.

So again, I disagree with your assessment. Obama isn't some helpless little boy in the White House along for the ride. He doesn't have a balanced budget because he doesn't want one.

Of course he don't want a balanced budget.... Do you? I'd have spent a few more trillion on getting employment sorted out and then look toward worrying about the debt. Besides, since we owe about 1 trillion to China and Japan and they're our good buddies we've no problem... The total foreign held is about 5 trillion so... They'd love to see us spend lots to get our economy up and running... We win and they win... anything else and everyone loses.

 

[piasabird]

Bonds are also US Debts. They are not included in the Debt Ceiling.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Bonds are also US Debts. They are not included in the Debt Ceiling.

The way governments sell debt is via bonds and notes(actually a bond too). Both including in the debt ceiling.