Out of all that I stated, you want to fight about that one sentence? I am familiar with budget issues and debt ceiling. Question by O.P: Why can't Biden eliminate debt ceiling with executive order?
Debt ceiling is not like sending C.I.A. &/or special forces overseas on a 25 hour mission.
If Biden tried to raise debt ceiling without Congressional approval, McCarthy could immediately take the case to federal court. Biden would lose.
he would lose because of the all the incels on the court..... the 14th amendment is pretty clear. And your post was not factually accurate and reflected an ignorance of what you were talking about. Sorry I triggered you
"Incels"...every Supreme Court justice except Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor is married. But then "incel" never did mean anything except "a man you wish would be denied sex and love". Actual involuntary celibacy is strictly coincidental.
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.
That was included to say that the debts from Union during the Civil War should be paid.
Biden, of course, could just argue that the debt limit is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Since Congress has authorized the spending by law, including debts incurred .. "shall not be questioned" is pretty clear.
Regardless of your politics, I think the debt limit drama is ridiculous. If you get an expensive rental or house, it's not like you should just declare you can't pay the bills. Well, you can, but you'll get evicted.
Because I passed second grade math I understand the US can easily pay its outstanding debt without raising the ceiling. The US takes in trillions of tax dollars each year. Interest on the debt is in the hundreds of millions. That means the US government could easily roll over its debt and pay the interest with the current tax revenue. Of course politicians don't want that because it would mean there would have to be serious cuts to the bloated federal budget. This is a total joke. The fiscal "conservative" is demanding not that we go back to Clinton era spending, or pre Covid spending but to 2022 spending. 20 years ago both parties would have said this was insanely irresponsible, Biden in fact did when deficits were much smaller during the Bush era and voted against raising the debt ceiling. But now the Democrats are so crazy they think returning to spending levels of a year ago are extreme and that the president should be able to unilaterally be able to raise the debt limit.
You'd think at a time of serious inflation there might be someone pushing fiscal restraint but the only politicians who are, are on the fringe of the Republican party. The most likely Republican nominee for president has shown zero interest in fiscal restraint. So right now we're left with a party that wants to blow money out of a fire hose, and a second party who wants to blow money out of slightly smaller fire hose but pretend they don't when they aren't in power.
The interest on the debt is NOT in the hundreds of millions it's in the hundreds of BILLIONS per quarter.
he would lose because of the all the incels on the court..... the 14th amendment is pretty clear. And your post was not factually accurate and reflected an ignorance of what you were talking about. Sorry I triggered you
"Incels"...every Supreme Court justice except Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor is married. But then "incel" never did mean anything except "a man you wish would be denied sex and love". Actual involuntary celibacy is strictly coincidental.
. Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh (rapist) give off major incel weird vibes. (and like most incels are happy to deny women basic human rights). These 3 nuts cases ALONE can dictate the direction of cases. So yes, the "incels" on the court could cause Biden to lose.
So executive orders can only be applied to the executive branch functions? You'd think he should have the power to unilaterally raise the debt limit.
Yes EOs can only be applied to his chain of command. They have been abused IMHO for at least a couple of decades.
Think about what you are saying here and the long term implications if a president can wield that power. Where would you stop it? What is the limiting principle?
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.
That was included to say that the debts from Union during the Civil War should be paid.
Biden, of course, could just argue that the debt limit is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Since Congress has authorized the spending by law, including debts incurred .. "shall not be questioned" is pretty clear.
Regardless of your politics, I think the debt limit drama is ridiculous. If you get an expensive rental or house, it's not like you should just declare you can't pay the bills. Well, you can, but you'll get evicted.
Because I passed second grade math I understand the US can easily pay its outstanding debt without raising the ceiling. The US takes in trillions of tax dollars each year. Interest on the debt is in the hundreds of millions. That means the US government could easily roll over its debt and pay the interest with the current tax revenue. Of course politicians don't want that because it would mean there would have to be serious cuts to the bloated federal budget. This is a total joke. The fiscal "conservative" is demanding not that we go back to Clinton era spending, or pre Covid spending but to 2022 spending. 20 years ago both parties would have said this was insanely irresponsible, Biden in fact did when deficits were much smaller during the Bush era and voted against raising the debt ceiling. But now the Democrats are so crazy they think returning to spending levels of a year ago are extreme and that the president should be able to unilaterally be able to raise the debt limit.
You'd think at a time of serious inflation there might be someone pushing fiscal restraint but the only politicians who are, are on the fringe of the Republican party. The most likely Republican nominee for president has shown zero interest in fiscal restraint. So right now we're left with a party that wants to blow money out of a fire hose, and a second party who wants to blow money out of slightly smaller fire hose but pretend they don't when they aren't in power.
Like many Americans, the federal government is shelling out a lot more money to cover interest payments on its debt after a series of Federal Reserve rate hikes over the past year.
Not being american this is not my business but I have a question.
Isn't the USA debt around 20 000 billions ?
With this figure, at a low rate of 1% of interest, isn't the service of the debt about 200 billions ?
Not millions...
The real average rate is probably higher.
Say 500 billions per year...
Doesn't it worry you ?
If the confidence in the US $ were to fade, the consequences would be huge.
Raising the ceiling erodes this confidence and I'm sure many who now better, even top-level decision makers, can't just understand why the $$ did not collapse 20 years ago.
We're all dancing, pray the music doesn't stop.
Well, we may just have to change the music (reference currency :-) ) and keep on dancing.
US Constitution. Despite the desires of some, we are not an autocracy.
It doesn't seem that anyone has actually posted what is in the constitution:
__________
Section 8: Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
___________
It doesn't get any clearer than that; Presidents can't just borrow money. By the way, it also says congress is who pays the debts, not the President. If Congress is not paying the bills as is in the constitution, it is up to the Supreme Court to force them to, not for the president to just decide to.
The 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
______
So somehow this allows the president to borrow money?
The spirit of the law is obviously that the US would pay the debts of the Union but not the Confederacy, but even doing your best to ignore that and try to twist the words, it does not allow the president to just do what he wants.
So fortunately, the constitution does actually treat debt and money the same. These Biden administration arguments that they are somehow different (for example, he claims he can just cancel student debt at a whim) doesn't pass muster.
McCarthy, of California, often equates the U.S. national debt of $31.4 trillion to individual consumer debt. He argues that if you go “over your limit” on personal credit cards, then you, and by extension America, need to “spend less in the coming year than we spent this year.”
But it’s not that simple. Raising the debt limit does not authorize more spending in the future. For now, it merely allows the government to cover the bills it has already incurred.
What Republicans are really doing is using their leverage, and the implicit threat of default, to accomplish a separate, longstanding GOP policy goal: Force the government to roll back discretionary spending. In this case, McCarthy wants 2024 baseline spending to be rolled back to its 2022 level. Yet he also insists that defense spending — which makes up more than 30% of the total — be insulated from any cuts. This means everything else would need to be slashed even further to get the overall number back to 2022 levels.
According to the conservative-leaning CATO Institute, exempting the military from a spending rollback would require cutting the rest of government — everything from homeland security to public health to air traffic control — by around 20%.
McCarthy, of California, often equates the U.S. national debt of $31.4 trillion to individual consumer debt. He argues that if you go “over your limit” on personal credit cards, then you, and by extension America, need to “spend less in the coming year than we spent this year.”
But it’s not that simple. Raising the debt limit does not authorize more spending in the future. For now, it merely allows the government to cover the bills it has already incurred.
What Republicans are really doing is using their leverage, and the implicit threat of default, to accomplish a separate, longstanding GOP policy goal: Force the government to roll back discretionary spending. In this case, McCarthy wants 2024 baseline spending to be rolled back to its 2022 level. Yet he also insists that defense spending — which makes up more than 30% of the total — be insulated from any cuts. This means everything else would need to be slashed even further to get the overall number back to 2022 levels.
According to the conservative-leaning CATO Institute, exempting the military from a spending rollback would require cutting the rest of government — everything from homeland security to public health to air traffic control — by around 20%.
Discretionary spending is only 20% of the budget.
Defense spending is less than half of the discretionary spending.
In 2019 the budget was $3.9 trillion.
There is no reason in the world the budget in 2023 needs to be almost $5 trillion.
Not being american this is not my business but I have a question.
Isn't the USA debt around 20 000 billions ?
With this figure, at a low rate of 1% of interest, isn't the service of the debt about 200 billions ?
Not millions...
The real average rate is probably higher.
Say 500 billions per year...
Doesn't it worry you ?
If the confidence in the US $ were to fade, the consequences would be huge.
Raising the ceiling erodes this confidence and I'm sure many who now better, even top-level decision makers, can't just understand why the $ did not collapse 20 years ago.
We're all dancing, pray the music doesn't stop.
Well, we may just have to change the music (reference currency :-) ) and keep on dancing.
Be careful.
The debt is $32 TRILLION.
The interest on the debt alone is going to be upwards of $600 BILLION this year.
According to the conservative-leaning CATO Institute, exempting the military from a spending rollback would require cutting the rest of government — everything from homeland security to public health to air traffic control — by around 20%.
The examples given show why this is has become a losing issue for those politicking for an unrestricted increase in the debt. The last few years have made it clear that the government is way more corrupt and way more wasteful than could be imagined just a short time ago.
homeland security: pretty clear that we can use a whole lot less surveillance of, for example, parents who attend school board meetings and 15 agents might be a bit much to check on the knots used on NASCAR garages.
Public health: If the CDC and NIH didn't exist the covid response would have been a lot better. Without NIH funding we may not have even had covid.
Air traffic control: Buttigieg will just have to delay replacing the racist roads and make due without female crash test dummies (whatever those things are) in order to pay the controllers.
What Republicans are really doing is using their leverage, and the implicit threat of default, to accomplish a separate, longstanding GOP policy goal: Force the government to roll back discretionary spending. In this case, McCarthy wants 2024 baseline spending to be rolled back to its 2022 level.
