What? No government shutdown threads?

[ElFenix]

There's no part of the Constitution that requires Congress to approve borrowing. We could abolish the debt ceiling tomorrow if we wanted.

uh, no, it's article 1, section 8.

 

[Texashiker]

uh, no, it's article 1, section 8.

good call,

Section 8,

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

[fskimospy]

I was wondering when you were going to pop in and tell me I was wrong.

You made the claim, now back it up, post your own links.

This from the guy who was asked over and over again to support his position and refused.

Here's a quick one:

A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.

End of story.

 

[fskimospy]

uh, no, it's article 1, section 8.

Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.

 

[Texashiker]

Here's a quick one:

A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.

End of story.

Link to source?

Please cite your sources.

And please provide a true and correct context in which the source is being cited.

Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.

Kinda like how congress granted the federal reserve the right to print money? Uh, yea, we have seen how that turned out.

The fed is pumping $85 billion a month into the bond market, and who has to pay that money back?

The ability to print money was never intended to be a crutch for wall street.

As jefferson said,

*link provided in post #347

the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale

To spend money that future generations have to pay back, is nothing more than swindling their future.

 

[fskimospy]

Link to source?

Please cite your sources.

And please provide a true and correct context in which the source is being cited.

LOL.

All of a sudden the guy who doesn't want to cite a single source to back up his ideas now wants citations and context.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=1380&chapter=64322&layout=html&Itemid=27

A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our Union. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree which, without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry, remote as we are from Europe, and shall be from danger. It were otherwise to be feared our popular maxims would incline us to too great parsimony and indulgence. We labor less now than any civilized nation of Europe; and a habit of labor in the people is as essential to the health and vigor of their minds and bodies, as it is conducive to the welfare of the state. We ought not to suffer our self-love to deceive us in a comparison upon these points.

 

[ElFenix]

Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.

true, and congress has delegated a lot of authority. but to eliminate the debt ceiling laws may be completely abdicating the authority to another branch, which congress can't do.

 

[chucky2]

F yeah! I absolutely know that if he were alive today after saying that, and could see the insane amount of Gov and Gov debt, he'd be like, That, is exactly what I was shooting for! :thumbsup:

Texas, you need to come over to the Spender side. $5k sellout check is as good as in the mail man, get yours while the getting is good!

 

[fskimospy]

true, and congress has delegated a lot of authority. but to eliminate the debt ceiling laws may be completely abdicating the authority to another branch, which congress can't do.

Unlikely. Basically the only powers that Congress can't delegate are those that are exclusively legislative in function. So while it could delegate borrowing authority to the president, it couldn't delegate the authority to write the law that does that.

 

[Texashiker]

LOL.

All of a sudden the guy who doesn't want to cite a single source to back up his ideas now wants citations and context.

Cracks in your armor are showing.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. I do not have to cite a source to backup my opinion.

And your link to libertyfund is timing out.

Unlikely. Basically the only powers that Congress can't delegate are those that are exclusively legislative in function. So while it could delegate borrowing authority to the president, it couldn't delegate the authority to write the law that does that.

You are talking hypothetical situations.

As it stands right now, congress must approve any borrowing.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
IIRC, the Constitution requires that Congress approve borrowing. I don't think Congress can ignore that or delegate it to the President. I suppose they could just go ahead and authorize a crap ton of debt, but the politics for that would be very very bad.

Fern

There's no part of the Constitution that requires Congress to approve borrowing. We could abolish the debt ceiling tomorrow if we wanted.

The only responsible thing to do now is to abolish the debt ceiling. We've already crossed the Rubicon in a sense where one political party has found that holding the nation hostage over it is to its political advantage. It's only a matter of time before the Democrats follow their lead on it, and then we will have a yearly financial crisis.

This is no way to run a country.

Sorry, to be clearer I meant that there's no part of the Constitution that prevents Congress from delegating that authority.

"Sorry, to be clearer" Bwuahaha. You were wrong and can't admit it. How much f'ing clearer could you have been in your post?

Now, my real question is - where is it in the Constitution that says Congress can't delegate their spending authority?

Because we all know that the President can't have the line item veto. That's unconstitutional.

I just wanna how come you're sooo positive that Congress can delegate borrowing. And, BTW, to whom do you suggest they delegate this power?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Cracks in your armor are showing.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. I do not have to cite a source to backup my opinion.

And your link to libertyfund is timing out.

Link works great for me.

So long as you are willing to admit that literally no credible source shares your opinion on what we should do that's fine by me. What's odd is that such a thing wouldn't cause you to rethink your position.

Needless to say, presumably you are now aware that the founders did not think the way you thought they did.

 

[kia75]

Cracks in your armor are showing.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. I do not have to cite a source to backup my opinion.

Everyone's entitled to their own OPINIONS, but nobody is entitled to their own FACTS, and we've been showing you, over and over and over that factually, you are wrong on what the debt ceiling is, you are wrong on basic economics and wrong on consensus of the founding fathers on debt, basically wrong in anything factual. And IMO, an opinion not based on facts is worthless.

 

[Texashiker]

Needless to say, presumably you are now aware that the founders did not think the way you thought they did.

Prove it - I provided links and part of the Constitution.

The founding fathers clearing intended the government to control the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

"[A] national bank ... was not essential to the work of the Federal Government ... This was ... only a measure for carrying out the interests of wealthy men with those of the government."
From William Graham Sumner's Alexander Hamilton

Everyone's entitled to their own OPINIONS, but nobody is entitled to their own FACTS, and we've been showing you, over and over and over that factually, you are wrong on what the debt ceiling is, you are wrong on basic economics and wrong on consensus of the founding fathers on debt, basically wrong in anything factual. And IMO, an opinion not based on facts is worthless.

I never stated my opinion as fact, when I do I will provide a link to back it up.

 

[fskimospy]

"Sorry, to be clearer" Bwuahaha. You were wrong and can't admit it. How much f'ing clearer could you have been in your post?

Now, my real question is - where is it in the Constitution that says Congress can't delegate their spending authority?

Because we all know that the President can't have the line item veto. That's unconstitutional.

I just wanna how come you're sooo positive that Congress can delegate borrowing. And, BTW, to whom do you suggest they delegate this power?

Fern

Glass houses, Fern old buddy:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2342543&page=12

You said Congress could not delegate that power to the President. That was wrong. Do you know why the line item veto was unconstitutional? Because it was the President exercising a legislative function, it had nothing to do with spending per se. Under current nondelegation jurisprudence Congress only needs to designate an 'intelligible principle' for its delegation of non-legislative power.

 

[jackstar7]

I never stated my opinion as fact, when I do I will provide a link to back it up.

It's been pointed out that your opinions are founded in non-facts.

That was his point.

 

[fskimospy]

Prove it - I provided links and part of the Constitution.

The founding fathers clearing intended the government to control the money.

So now you're moving the goal posts. Does this mean you admit you were wrong about their position on debt?

 

[ElFenix]

As it stands right now, congress must approve any borrowing.

only because we're currently up against the debt ceiling. which seems to be the one guideline provided by congress (and congress must provide guidelines for delegated powers).

 

[Texashiker]

So now you're moving the goal posts. Does this mean you admit you were wrong about their position on debt?

Are you going to admit congress has to approve the debt limit?

And no, I will not admit that I am wrong, simply because the current system is not what the founding fathers wanted.

The nation was supposed to be ran with no debt.

Raising the debt limit is opposite what this nation should be doing.

Raising the debt limit is opposite the way the nation was designed to operate.

Nor can I enslave future generations to debt.

 

[ElFenix]

The nation was supposed to be ran with no debt.

which is why congress was given the ability to borrow money

 

[Texashiker]

which is why congress was given the ability to borrow money

Congress has the ability to print money,
congress has the ability to tax,
congress has the ability to borrow.

Shouldn't borrowing be a last resort?

Jefferson

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1340.htm

"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation.

Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison,1789. ME 7:455

We can not pass our debt down to our children.

Our national debt currently stands at three generations.

 

[Fern]

Glass houses, Fern old buddy:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2342543&page=12

Shrug. Not sure what that link is supposed to show.

You said Congress could not delegate that power to the President. That was wrong. Do you know why the line item veto was unconstitutional? Because it was the President exercising a legislative function, it had nothing to do with spending per se. Under current nondelegation jurisprudence Congress only needs to designate an 'intelligible principle' for its delegation of non-legislative power.

What does "legislative function" mean precisely?

Looks to me like a function of the legislative branch is to approve debt. You seem to be claiming that approving debt is not a legislative power. Explain how it isn't since the Constitution seems to specifically grant it to Congress.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Congress has the ability to print money,
congress has the ability to tax,
congress has the ability to borrow.

Shouldn't borrowing be a last resort?

sometimes you find something that's a good idea to spend money on that will make you money in the future but you don't have the money right now coming in from revenue sources. borrowing is generally preferable to printing money in that situation.

 

[fskimospy]

Shrug. Not sure what that link is supposed to show.

It's supposed to show that some people have a problem admitting when they are wrong, despite incontrovertible evidence staring them in the face.

What does "legislative function" mean precisely?

Looks to me like a function of the legislative branch is to approve debt. You seem to be claiming that approving debt is not a legislative power. Explain how it isn't since the Constitution seems to specifically grant it to Congress.

Fern

A power of the legislature and legislating are not the same thing. Legislating is the creation of new laws, powers of the legislature are things that Congress is given power over.

As an example, Congress is specifically granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, just as it is given the power to borrow. Congress routinely delegates this power to the executive branch through one of a zillion different agencies. So while Congress can (and does) delegate that power all day long, they could not delegate to the executive the ability to decide what powers they will delegate.

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

EDIT: fixed link

 

[Texashiker]

sometimes you find something that's a good idea to spend money on that will make you money in the future but you don't have the money right now coming in from revenue sources. borrowing is generally preferable to printing money in that situation.

See my ninja edit.

Jefferson said,

no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence

Our current debt stands at three generations.

I have no problem with the government borrowing money. However, we can not pass that debt down to our children.