• 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.

President in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution?

conjur

No Lifer
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Hmm...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.
 
Yes, he is in violation. Not only that, but he is doing a great disservice to this country by undermining the condidence in the government's ability to pay it's loans.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Hmm...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.
Sounds to me like he's questioning the solvency of Social Security, (not the debt of the US as a whole) which is something that is not really in question in the first place. We know SS is not solvent.

Hey, today is as good as any for manufacturing strawmen though, and you're one of the best at it.
 
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Constitution? What's that? 😕

🙁

It is sad. That fundamental basis for our entire government has been beaten and abused not just by this administration, but by the several before it. And it would have been just as kicked around and stepped on by almost any other "viable" candidate last election.

And very few people actually seem to notice or care, because they are too concerned with what homosexuals "should" be doing, who gets to starve to death, who's rich daddy may have helped him into a cushy job, what pop star may have molested children, etc.


And to bring this back around to being on-topic, no, he did not just "question the validity of the US debt." :roll:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Hmm...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.

All right.. another target from Conjur. Stand em up so we can shoot em down.

Let's see, I'm trying to find out where he says the public debt is invalid. Or are you just making things up again you ol' joker...
 
I take that line to mean the government can't contract a company or individual to do something, and afterwards refuse to pay them. I don't see that happening with this Social Security quote...
 
Note that the Propagandist was seen the other day holding some US Treasury bonds in Parkersburg, W.V. That's what he's saying "may not be worth something"
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Hmm...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.
Sounds to me like he's questioning the solvency of Social Security, (not the debt of the US as a whole) which is something that is not really in question in the first place. We know SS is not solvent.

Hey, today is as good as any for manufacturing strawmen though, and you're one of the best at it.

Well he said a government IOU, "may be worth something, and it may not be worth something." If that's not questioning the validity of the US government debt, what is?
 
What is the message being sent to the foreign countries buying into our debt to pay for Bush's bullsh*t war?

Say that enough Shrub and you won't be able to pay for it.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Hmm...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.
Sounds to me like he's questioning the solvency of Social Security, (not the debt of the US as a whole) which is something that is not really in question in the first place. We know SS is not solvent.

Hey, today is as good as any for manufacturing strawmen though, and you're one of the best at it.

Well he said a government IOU, "may be worth something, and it may not be worth something." If that's not questioning the validity of the US government debt, what is?
Let's keep context in mind. Bush's remark is in reference to SS, not the government debt. Why is that so difficult to understand? He's right too. A SS IOU may be worth something, and it may not be worth something, in the future unless something is done about SS. Is there anyone in here who disagrees with that?
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
What is the message being sent to the foreign countries buying into our debt to pay for Bush's bullsh*t war?

Say that enough Shrub and you won't be able to pay for it.

BTW,

Democrats test debt xenophobia as 2006 issue
Candidates sound alarm over foreign holdings of Treasury bonds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7294906
Who holds U.S. Treasury securities as of January, 2005

Amount in billions $ Percentage of foreign-held Treasury debt (central banks)
Japan 701.6 36%
Mainland China 194.5 10%
United Kingdom 163 8%
Caribbean Banking Centers* 92.5 5%
Korea 67.7 3%


20 years ago
http://www.treas.gov/tic/shl94sum.html
Country 1978 1984
Japan 12 28
United Kingdom 13 43
Germany 9 30
Canada 8 22
Switzerland 13 22
Middle East Oil Exporters 19 45
British West Indies ?*? 2
Taiwan ?*? ?*?
Singapore ?*? 6
Belgium N.A. N.A. N
Rest of World - -
Unknown ?*? 7
Total 99 268 847 1,244
[/quote]
 
Originally posted by: conjur
14th Amendment
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


Hmm...


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050310-14.html
This is a pay-as-you-go system. Money goes in and money goes out. There's no such thing, by the way, as a Social Security trust. Some people probably think that the government has taken your payroll taxes and held it for you and then when you retire, they give it back to you. That's not what happens. (Laughter.) The government takes your money and spends it on other things and puts an IOU, a piece of paper, on your behalf, which may be worth something, and it may not be worth something.

Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.

That section means that the US government WILL pay its debt. That's what is meant by validity of public debt will not be questioned. It does not mean that you can't criticise how the debt was incurred or that a program is financed through debt.
 
The whole reference to whetehr those IOUs are worth something is in relation to the fact that SS is going to go broke. We can debate the exact year of insolvency, but there is no doubt it will go broke. If nothing is done and we continue on as we have, then how will those IOUs be paid?

Since it is a public debt, they will be, but the choices if we do not act now will be ugly at best - huge tax increases, large benefit cuts and significant increase in teh retiremetn age all of which will be more painful then and if addressed now much less.
 
For sake of argument, let's say Congress decides to abolish Social Security effective immediately. Therefore there are no future SS obligations, and therefore the Special Issue T-bonds in the SS Trust fund have no value as they represent a claim on future cash streams. Special Issue bonds aren't an asset, they're a recognition of a future liability.

If it makes it easier to wrap your mind around, think of Special Issue T-bonds as post-dated checks. Writing a post-dated check doesn't somehow magically create the money to pay itself, it just makes it so you can account for the future obligation today in your check register so you can plan around it. If I drain all the money out of my checking account, I'll still need to come up with the money to pay the post-dated check when it's presented. The check doesn't have any value today, it's represents value payable when the liability comes due (the post-date).

Now let's say that future liability goes away - there's no reason for the post-dated check to exist since there's no longer a future obligation to pay, it becomes "worthless." Note that just as no value was created when you wrote the check, none gets destroyed if you rip up the check.

Therefore the President is correct, although he's intentionally using rhetoric to muddy up the waters, making it sound like all Treasury debt is at risk when it's not. I understand not wanting to create needless complication, but this is something which could and should be explained clearly.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
For sake of argument, let's say Congress decides to abolish Social Security effective immediately. Therefore there are no future SS obligations, and therefore the Special Issue T-bonds in the SS Trust fund have no value as they represent a claim on future cash streams. Special Issue bonds aren't an asset, they're a recognition of a future liability.

If it makes it easier to wrap your mind around, think of Special Issue T-bonds as post-dated checks. Writing a post-dated check doesn't somehow magically create the money to pay itself, it just makes it so you can account for the future obligation today in your check register so you can plan around it. If I drain all the money out of my checking account, I'll still need to come up with the money to pay the post-dated check when it's presented. The check doesn't have any value today, it's represents value payable when the liability comes due (the post-date).

Now let's say that future liability goes away - there's no reason for the post-dated check to exist since there's no longer a future obligation to pay, it becomes "worthless." Note that just as no value was created when you wrote the check, none gets destroyed if you rip up the check.

Therefore the President is correct, although he's intentionally using rhetoric to muddy up the waters, making it sound like all Treasury debt is at risk when it's not. I understand not wanting to create needless complication, but this is something which could and should be explained clearly.

Excellent analogy. Thanks :thumbsup:
 
Did the President just question the validity of the debt? Sure sounds like it to me.

Of course it would sound like that to you...I am sure if you could, you would find an example of the President violating the Constitution based on his choice of breakfast cereal.🙂

The President is talking about the limitations and flaws in Social Security, not the validity of our nation's debt...although previous Presidents have dipped into Social Security to pay off the debt.

 
Originally posted by: glenn1
For sake of argument, let's say Congress decides to abolish Social Security effective immediately. Therefore there are no future SS obligations, and therefore the Special Issue T-bonds in the SS Trust fund have no value as they represent a claim on future cash streams. Special Issue bonds aren't an asset, they're a recognition of a future liability.

If it makes it easier to wrap your mind around, think of Special Issue T-bonds as post-dated checks. Writing a post-dated check doesn't somehow magically create the money to pay itself, it just makes it so you can account for the future obligation today in your check register so you can plan around it. If I drain all the money out of my checking account, I'll still need to come up with the money to pay the post-dated check when it's presented. The check doesn't have any value today, it's represents value payable when the liability comes due (the post-date).

Now let's say that future liability goes away - there's no reason for the post-dated check to exist since there's no longer a future obligation to pay, it becomes "worthless." Note that just as no value was created when you wrote the check, none gets destroyed if you rip up the check.

Therefore the President is correct, although he's intentionally using rhetoric to muddy up the waters, making it sound like all Treasury debt is at risk when it's not. I understand not wanting to create needless complication, but this is something which could and should be explained clearly.

Your information is completely incorrect. Shame on you for trying to pull a fast one worthy of all the other BS tossed by this Administration:

SS Trust Fund FAQ

By law, all income to the trust funds that is not immediately needed to pay expenses is invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues." Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the Trust Funds have held "public issues" (marketable securities available to the general public). Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss or enjoy a gain if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

Note the phrase, "special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value". And, "Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash."

This information is totally at odds with your statement that the issues are a "claim on future cash streams". Show me any official SS site that makes that statement. Yours is just a BS "explanation" for a BS Administration.



 
Originally posted by: chrisms
I take that line to mean the government can't contract a company or individual to do something, and afterwards refuse to pay them. I don't see that happening with this Social Security quote...

he is questioning whether the government will reay its debts to Social Security. He's basically saying that the US will not repay its debts.
 
Note the phrase, "special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value". And, "Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash."

This information is totally at odds with your statement that the issues are a "claim on future cash streams". Show me any official SS site that makes that statement. Yours is just a BS "explanation" for a BS Administration.

This isn't hard, and I'm sure you can figure it out. Ask yourself two questions and the rest should flow relatively easily from that.

First of all, why would a Special Issue bond need to be redeemed? Secondly, where would the money to pay the redeemed bond come from?

Answer key:

1. Because Social Security needed the money to pay beneficiaries, i.e. the "future claim" I spoke of becomes a realized obligation (that's finance-speak for the future debt has come due).

2. From the Treasury, i.e general tax revenues. Thus the second part of my explanation that the Special Issues do not create value ("If I drain all the money out of my checking account, I'll still need to come up with the money to pay the post-dated check when it's presented")
 
Back
Top