Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9079 total)
138 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 136 visitors)
Newest Member: Test Moose
Post Volume: Total: 895,222 Year: 6,334/6,534 Month: 527/650 Week: 65/232 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   United States Debt Default
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 46 of 211 (624556)
07-18-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Malvern
07-18-2011 3:16 PM


Re: Possible
Of course, and they were pretty ineffective.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Malvern, posted 07-18-2011 3:16 PM Malvern has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 47 of 211 (624558)
07-18-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by hooah212002
07-18-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Possible
The answer to all of those is no, in my opinion. We all know that none of those programs are where the problem lies, though. None of those programs are where there is the most waste. Those programs help people, not pad pockets.

I agree. However, there are going to be some tough choices if the debt ceiling is not raised. Someone is going to decide who gets laid off, who doesn't get their social security, etc. The Republicans did the same thing during the Clinton presidency, and it cost them seats. All the Democrats had to do is say, "Anyone want to know why they aren't getting their Social Security checks? Well, the Republicans are to blame." And they were right.

There seems to be a real disconnect within the base of the Republican party. Not long ago, you could have attended a Republican rally where someone would have a sign that said "No Socialized Medicine, and Keep Your Hands Off Of My Medicare". I remember watching a political talk show where a Republican representative refused to consider that Medicare was socialized medicine.

On top of all of this, non-security discretionary spending is not the problem:

quote:
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion).
http://useconomy.about.com/...eralbudget/p/Discretionary.htm



This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 07-18-2011 3:43 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2011 10:48 PM Taq has not replied

  
seanfhear
Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 23
From: California
Joined: 09-28-2010


(2)
Message 48 of 211 (624570)
07-18-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by frako
07-17-2011 8:05 AM


Re: Credit Ratings Agencies
These are people who literally can't tell if their income ($50,000 a year) is MORE or LESS than someone making $25 million a year.

I know American education is bad but is it really that bad A first grade student a child of 6-7 could anwser that correctly.

Some conservatives lack education, some lack intelligence but it seems in this country you can’t fix defective ideology with a good education or a law degree. Mostly Americans have lost the ability to gather information and think for themselves so they follow a perverted right wing morality over the cliff and with their dying breath they say”damned liberals”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by frako, posted 07-17-2011 8:05 AM frako has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 49 of 211 (624591)
07-18-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taq
07-18-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Possible
Someone is going to decide who gets laid off, who doesn't get their social security, etc.

There's a bit of a rub, there - the Executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to not pay someone whom Congress has authorized an expenditure for. When Congress passes a law that you should be paid, it's a violation of the separation of powers for the Executive branch to not pay you.

It's a bit of a constitutional oversight, but it stems fundamentally from the fact that Congress has passed mutually contradicting laws - they've authorized only X amount of debt, but have legislated K > X amount of spending. There's no constitutional guidance on what's supposed to happen when Congress does that because it never occurred to the Founding Fathers that Congress would ever be that stupid.

Regardless, SS recipients have a legal right to be paid, military contractors have a legal right to be paid, everybody who the government is supposed to pay has a legal right to be paid, because a law was passed to pay them. And the Executive branch simply isn't granted the constitutional authority to contradict Congress and say "sorry, not going to pay you" - not for any reason. There's already court precedent on this; when Congress passes a law that someone should be paid for something, they have to be paid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taq, posted 07-18-2011 5:00 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Jon, posted 07-19-2011 1:34 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 51 by Malvern, posted 07-19-2011 10:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 211 (624598)
07-19-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
07-18-2011 10:48 PM


All Pot, No Stew
Regardless, SS recipients have a legal right to be paid, military contractors have a legal right to be paid, everybody who the government is supposed to pay has a legal right to be paid, because a law was passed to pay them. And the Executive branch simply isn't granted the constitutional authority to contradict Congress and say "sorry, not going to pay you" - not for any reason. There's already court precedent on this; when Congress passes a law that someone should be paid for something, they have to be paid.

But what happens when the money just isn't there? What happens when the Social Security checks and military wage checks are returned NSF?

What law creates something from nothing?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2011 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 11:53 AM Jon has replied

  
Malvern
Junior Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 20
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio USA
Joined: 04-22-2011


Message 51 of 211 (624670)
07-19-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
07-18-2011 10:48 PM


Re: Possible
Speaking of constitutional oversite, can Congress REALLY kick the responsibility and authority of raising the debt ceiling over to the President without actually voting on it themselves? Isn't the Legislative branch mandated by the constitution to vote on money matters, and not the Executive?

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2011 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 07-19-2011 10:23 AM Malvern has not replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 11:54 AM Malvern has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 52 of 211 (624672)
07-19-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Malvern
07-19-2011 10:14 AM


Re: Possible
Certainly they can. It may well be unconstitutional but until that is determined by the SCOTUS they can do most anything.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Malvern, posted 07-19-2011 10:14 AM Malvern has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 211 (624682)
07-19-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jon
07-19-2011 1:34 AM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
But what happens when the money just isn't there? What happens when the Social Security checks and military wage checks are returned NSF?

The government prints money, Jon. By definition they can't run out of it because they're the source of it. The Secretary of the Treasury is given statutory authority to strike coinage. So, he'll just strike some. Under Federal Law he can strike all the platinum coinage he sees fit.

What law creates something from nothing?

Well, in this case, it's US Code Sect 31.5112 (k).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jon, posted 07-19-2011 1:34 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 07-19-2011 1:33 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2011 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 211 (624683)
07-19-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Malvern
07-19-2011 10:14 AM


Re: Possible
Speaking of constitutional oversite, can Congress REALLY kick the responsibility and authority of raising the debt ceiling over to the President without actually voting on it themselves?

Congress can't do anything except by voting on it, so by definition they'll have voted on the debt ceiling by authorizing the executive to raise the debt ceiling as he sees fit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Malvern, posted 07-19-2011 10:14 AM Malvern has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 211 (624703)
07-19-2011 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-19-2011 11:53 AM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
The government prints money, Jon. By definition they can't run out of it because they're the source of it.

But we're not dealing with printed money; we're dealing with electronic money, money in the bank.

So, he'll just strike some.

Why? He is not required to do so.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 11:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 1:46 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 211 (624706)
07-19-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jon
07-19-2011 1:33 PM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
But we're not dealing with printed money; we're dealing with electronic money, money in the bank.

Printed (or struck) money can be turned into electronic money in the bank.

Seriously, Jon. It's something banks do! You can take them a wad of cash and they'll take it from you and turn it into "electronic money." It's an inconvenience, but if House Republicans are determined to prolong their manufactured crisis, then it'll just be one more market-distorting inefficiency forced upon us by "free market" conservatives.

He is not required to do so.

As I said, he is required to do so - the executive branch has no constitutional unallotment power. Geithner has to pay everybody that Congress has decided to pay. That Congress has also declined to give him the money to do so, or to allow him to borrow the money in order to pay them, doesn't matter at all - a court would have no choice but to order the payment of legitimate classes of claimants because Congress has already legislated that they be paid. The result would be a line at the Treasury window, with each claimant possessed of a court order that they should be paid ahead of the other guys.

But Geithner has both statutory and constitutional authority to ignore the debt ceiling altogether, since he's the one who prints the money. Making sure that new dollars are backed by revenue is Congress's job, not his, and House Republicans have decided to abdicate that responsibility.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jon, posted 07-19-2011 1:33 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2011 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 57 of 211 (624708)
07-19-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-19-2011 11:53 AM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
The government prints money, Jon. By definition they can't run out of it because they're the source of it. The Secretary of the Treasury is given statutory authority to strike coinage. So, he'll just strike some. Under Federal Law he can strike all the platinum coinage he sees fit.

You never heard of the Federal Reserve?

The US government prints the bills, yes, but they cannot do anything with them until the Fed "buys" them to put them into circulation. The US Gov't cannot just print $$ and stick them into their various bank accounts to pay their bills.

The way the Gov't gets cash into their accounts to pay their obligations is to sell things (like bills/coins to the Fed which only pays about 4 cents per note, not face value), collect taxes and tariffs or sell Treasury Notes and Bonds (debt). As of Aug. 3 the executive cannot sell any more Treasury obligations until congress authorizes an increase in the ceiling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 11:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 5:26 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6835
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 58 of 211 (624712)
07-19-2011 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
07-19-2011 1:46 PM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
As I said, he is required to do so ...

No, Frog, he is not required to, authorized to or even permitted to. The Treasury can only print/strike what the Fed orders. It matters not what the Congress has obligated. Thus the debt problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 1:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 5:14 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 211 (624734)
07-19-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
07-19-2011 2:13 PM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
I think you're trying to take me out of context, here; the thing I'm asserting he's required to do is pay those claimants that Congress has legislated to be paid. The thing you're saying he's not able to do is print money to do so, but that's something totally different and that's not what I've asserted he's required to do.

No, Frog, he is not required to, authorized to or even permitted to.

Absolutely wrong. Treasury Secretary Geithner is absolutely required to allot payment to those claimants that Congress has legislated to be paid, contrary to your assertion.

The Treasury can only print/strike what the Fed orders.

Well, no. USC 31.5112(k) gives the Treasury Secretary discretion to strike platinum coinage as he sees fit.

quote:
The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

Do you see? Both mint and issue. 31.5112(k) gives the Treasury Secretary full authority to strike whatever coins in platinum he wants, to whatever end he wants, and issue them into circulation. The Fed isn't the only way that new dollars can enter the economy; Geithner can simply strike some very large $1,000,000 coins and roll them into a bank.

Thus the debt problem.

No, the debt ceiling problem is a result of Constitutional short-sightedness and a stop-gap measure enacted in WWII that results, uniquely among modern democracies, in Congress having to vote twice on the things they want to buy - once to allocate the funds to buy it, and once to actually get the funds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2011 2:13 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 786 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 211 (624735)
07-19-2011 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AZPaul3
07-19-2011 1:58 PM


Re: All Pot, No Stew
As of Aug. 3 the executive cannot sell any more Treasury obligations until congress authorizes an increase in the ceiling.

Frankly, it's not at all clear that the executive is constrained by Congress's failure to raise the debt ceiling:

1) Since Congress has already established that these debts should be paid, and the Treasury has no Constitutional unallotment authority, claimants have a legal right to be paid. All of them. The Treasury is obligated to do so, there's no Constitutional authority for the Treasury to say "sorry, the money's not there." They have to pay everybody; they can't pick and choose. They have no authority to prioritize one payment over another, so any attempt to do so would be reversed by a judicial ruling.

2) The Fourteenth Amendment reads in part:

quote:
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.

This is understood as preventing the government from defaulting on government loans and as it is an amendment, it supersedes any legislation. Therefore the Executive branch's obligation to preserve the Federal government's trustworthiness and prevent default on the debt overrides the Congressional debt ceiling.

3) As stated the Treasury Secretary has unilateral authority to both mint and issue platinum coinage in any denomination and amount, as granted by Congress in US Code 31.5112(k).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2011 1:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AZPaul3, posted 07-19-2011 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022