Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Oct 2, 2013.
Rep for major realization !
Rep for major funniness. Clever indeed.
Thank you. Honestly, it's no wonder that our politicians conduct themselves in this way when so many voters are just as blinded in their partisanship.
I'm by no means excusing anyone in the Republican Party here, even as a conservative. I hate Obamacare and support conservatives that say we need to cut back on entitlement spending---but if you're going to pull this stunt, you damn well better have a plan and darn well better be prepared. Otherwise, this entire thing needlessly and recklessly puts millions of jobs in a holding pattern and will do serious long-term damage to the economy.
Congressional representatives represent people from both sides of the aisle. So does the President. They're there to find compromise. That's their jobs.
This nonsense of pointing fingers and saying "we won't listen" is childish and immature. Our country is more important than that and the American people deserve better.
"It is extremely unlikely that the Treasury is not going to continue to pay on those securities," Moody's CEO Raymond McDaniel said in an interview with CNBC.
"Hopefully it is unlikely that we go past October 17 and fail to raise the debt ceiling, but even if that does happen, then we think that the U.S. Treasury is still going to pay on those Treasury securities," he added.
They are constitutionally obligate to pay on bonds and treasury notes. They are obligated under federal law to pay SS. Any politician or journalist telling you this "shutdown" threatens either of those is a liar and a damn liar. There is enough money coming in to pay for 75% of the government without borrowing any more.
They're also obligated under federal law to pay everything else and there is no impoundment power anymore...
Why does this conversation end every time I point that out, only to bring it up and require the observation again in another thread?
Because you're wrong
There's an argument that it is the least potentially unconstitutional of the options, but there isn't legal authority to do it.
And I'm not sure that "perhaps the least illegal" is really a peg to proudly hang your hat on...
It could be made to be legal, but it requires a payment prioritization bill to become law sometime in the next week.
Defaulting is completely unconstitutional as implied by the constitution. This is why Obama's plan B is to use the 14th Amendment and circumvent congress to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.
Correct. But that doesn't make payment prioritization legal. If we're going to look at violating statutory commands (which in the absence of a prioritization bill, that would) you have plenty of other options too, including allowing the Fed to lend directly to Treasury, exchanging debt subject to limit held by government agencies for debt that isn't subject to the limit, and a bunch of other stuff.