|
Fister Roboto posted:Is there anything that the Dems can do to stop this from being a regular, predictable crisis where the only viable option is to concede to the fascists? They can retain control of the House, which is the body that has unilateral power to create these kinds of crises at will.
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
the_steve posted:Mostly because when faced with an obstacle, and someone floats the idea of "There may be One Weird Trick", the Dems shrink back and go "We can't do that, the Supreme Court MIGHT strike it down uwu. We don't know that they would or not, but the possibility scares us." and the Republicans go "Lol, bet." I was being sarcastic. My honest opinion is that the Democrat Party as a whole is glad for the Republicans to turn into sickening freaks so they themselves can become contemptuous Tories. Shut up, take the benefits cuts or we'll feed you to the maniacs.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a troll account the mods have known is a troll account for six months, but have refused to remove. Thus, the thread is now theirs. They wanted to do something, but Sinema and Manchin wouldn't let them. As someone relying on SSDI and other government aid to survive, sure is fun to be the hostage.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but if part of your Fourteenth Amendment plan is an assumption that the Supreme Court and its financial backers wouldn't blow up the global economy, wouldn't you want to wait as late as possible to say "the Fourteenth Amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional?" You wouldn't want to give the Court any sort of window, even if they hear the case unprecedentedly quickly, where the debt ceiling hasn't yet elapsed. You wouldn't want the Court's choice to be "the debt ceiling no longer exists vs. Biden goes back to the negotiating table", you want it to be "the debt ceiling no longer exists vs. immediate default and global economic catastrophe" if you really want to tie the Court's hands. Obviously that's a very "pure game theory" approach. I suspect it falls apart in practice, and it's clear at this point that it's not what Biden is doing, but I have been thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Why? Do you think it's only possible if the Dems explicitly state that that's what they're doing? Do you believe that politicians never lie about their intentions or make promises they never intend to keep? Are we only allowed to judge them based on what they've said, and not on their actions (or lack of action)? Here's your own words a few posts up on this page: Fister Roboto posted:But with this, they have the excuse to say that they were backed into a corner and they just had no choice. Surely the reason Democrats want an excuse to say that they were backed into a corner and they just had no choice is so that they can say it. So where are the Democratic politicians saying they were backed into a corner and they just had no choice? There has to be literally one of them, right? Like even a tweet from a state legislator? Is it too much to ask for one example of Democrats doing the thing you said Democrats were doing? James Garfield fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That doesn't really make any sense. The executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit law after Congress' refusal to raise it is going to be a constitutional crisis, no matter when it happens. There's absolutely no merit in triggering it earlier on purpose. That's an incorrect, Republican framing. It's not the executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit. Congress controls spending, Congress orders spending, the executive is required to obey the spending which Congress has approved. The issue is that Congress has passed two contradictory laws - the law which says what the debt ceiling is and a law telling the executive how much to spend. The executive must obey both laws, but cannot because of the contradiction. I think a 1979 Supreme Court decision said something to the effect that the executive cannot selectively choose what parts of the budget to ignore - which is what they would be forced to do if they had to adhere to the debt limit. You've just said that (1)invoking the 14th amendment can't be done now because it's too close to the deadline and would create uncertainty, and also (2) the executive cannot use the 14th amendment earlier than needed because it's unnecessary too far from the deadline. Isn't that a Catch-22? You can only invoke the 14th when it's your last option, but if it's your last option you ALSO cannot invoke it because continuing to pay the bills is for some reason, apparently considered to be just as bad as default.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:People focus on the baseline number because it’s a good solid number to show and demonstrate how much it’s gone up compared to how much benefits are cut. It’s easier to grasp than the percentage of GDP is. E: like, “the number is getting bigger, ahhhh!” is the same psychological impulse that makes people freak out about our relatively manageable debt levels in the first place, leading to situations exactly like this. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:52 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Here's your own words a few posts up on this page: 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Military spending doesn't just starve other programs, it is a threat to all humans on the planet (obviously some much more than others) through climate change.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Military spending doesn't just starve other programs, it is a threat to all humans on the planet (obviously some much more than others) through climate change.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Military spending doesn't just starve other programs, it is a threat to all humans on the planet (obviously some much more than others) through climate change. Honestly the US best hope against climate change is probably the military deciding to do something about it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Did you even read the words in that image before you posted it?? Nothing there is remotely like "we were backed into a corner and just had no choice"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Mostly because when faced with an obstacle, and someone floats the idea of "There may be One Weird Trick", the Dems shrink back and go "We can't do that, the Supreme Court MIGHT strike it down uwu. We don't know that they would or not, but the possibility scares us." and the Republicans go "Lol, bet." The problem is that invoking the 14th and then having it upheld by the court isn't the whole issue. The process of invoking the 14th would absolutely cause some of the very issues that a default would simply because of the uncertainty of that solution. Confidence in U.S. debt would completely crater in the short term and there would be significant economic aftershocks during the period between "14th is invoked" and "it gets fast-tracked to the Supreme Court", even if that period was like two weeks or something incredibly short. It might be worth it in the end assuming it ultimately led to the destruction of the concept of the debt limit, but I'm not surprised that Biden is trying to avoid having "threw the entire global economy into a panic by entering into a staredown with a supreme court full of true believer lunatics" attached to his administration's resume.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Honestly the US best hope against climate change is probably the military deciding to do something about it. I think resorting to WMD's, while effective at reducing consumption, would be immoral.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
Kanos posted:The problem is that invoking the 14th and then having it upheld by the court isn't the whole issue. The process of invoking the 14th would absolutely cause some of the very issues that a default would simply because of the uncertainty of that solution. Confidence in U.S. debt would completely crater in the short term and there would be significant economic aftershocks during the period between "14th is invoked" and "it gets fast-tracked to the Supreme Court", even if that period was like two weeks or something incredibly short. So republicans have found the perfect mechanism to get guaranteed concessions on a regular timeline forever, and there’s nothing anyone in the US can do about it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:So republicans have found the perfect mechanism to get guaranteed concessions on a regular timeline forever, and there’s nothing anyone in the US can do about it? They can get a sufficiently blue congress, with a constituent base sufficiently sane about the national debt that the debt ceiling can be removed by the same mechanism that introduced it without handing Congress to the Rs.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I thought the problem was that there was a deadline where the world economy was going to explode, which is why there was no time to invoke the 14th amendment and deal with the legal challenges. Is that not the case? Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That's an incorrect, Republican framing. It's not the executive taking it upon itself to ignore the debt limit. Congress controls spending, Congress orders spending, the executive is required to obey the spending which Congress has approved. The issue is that Congress has passed two contradictory laws - the law which says what the debt ceiling is and a law telling the executive how much to spend. The executive must obey both laws, but cannot because of the contradiction. I think a 1979 Supreme Court decision said something to the effect that the executive cannot selectively choose what parts of the budget to ignore - which is what they would be forced to do if they had to adhere to the debt limit. The problem is that the world economy is based on the idea that US debt is 100% reliable and absolutely going to be paid back, with zero chance whatsoever of a payment being missed or delayed. US debt is considered the safest investment in the world, and a lot of economic assumptions have been built around that. So anything that threatens that base assumption risks bringing the economy into crisis. If a debt payment is made in a way that may or may not be constitutional, and has to be dragged into the Supreme Court to determine whether that payment was even legal, that payment obviously can't be taken as safe and secure. Doesn't matter if a debt ceiling crisis is currently looming or not. Even if the administration makes payments under a 14th Amendment claim, the people who own the debt can't exactly spend that money, since they have no guarantee that the government isn't going to be forced to claw that money back next year. Even if the administration pays out the money, the people who own the debt can't exactly treat the payments as their own until the Supreme Court has confirmed it's not going to overturn that entire legal theory. That's not a safe investment. That's why the 14th Amendment is an absolute last-resort move. Even if the executive branch unilaterally forces payments using unprecedented legal doctrines, those payments can't be considered safe and stable until the judicial branch confirms them, which makes them riskier and more uncertain than if Congress raised the debt limit the same way it always does. And it's that risk and uncertainty that poses a threat to the US credit rating and therefore to the economy as a whole. Yes, this does mean that repeated, successive debt crisises can also harm the economy even if deals are eventually passed. In fact, credit-rating agencies lowered the credit rating of US debt during the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis. The markets would generally prefer that these sorts of down-to-the-wire showdowns don't happen at all. But if they do have to happen, they would prefer the tried-and-true resolution of "Congress strikes a deal and passes a law raising the ceiling or removing it entirely", because there's no legal uncertainty here: once the deal is struck and passed, it's legally rock-solid and there's no further uncertainty (at least until the next time the ceiling approaches). I AM GRANDO posted:So republicans have found the perfect mechanism to get guaranteed concessions on a regular timeline forever, and there’s nothing anyone in the US can do about it? The mechanism they're using to get concessions here is "having control of the House". The debt ceiling actually isn't that special here - even if it were outright removed, there's other periodic must-pass legislation they could dig their heels in on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Military spending doesn't just starve other programs, it is a threat to all humans on the planet (obviously some much more than others) through climate change. Stupid question: obviously it's never going to happen politically, but constitutionally is there anything stopping the president from ordering the military to feed the hungry and build homes for the homeless? They do that when there are natural disasters, right?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Did you even read the words in that image before you posted it?? Nothing there is remotely like "we were backed into a corner and just had no choice" No, he did not literally, explicitly say that they were backed into a corner, and if that's what you're expecting me to provide for you then I'm sorry. But using rhetoric such as "not everyone gets what they want" or "that's the responsibility of governance" shows that the message they want to convey is that they had no choice but to accept this terrible compromise. I'd appreciate if you could make a reasonable attempt to understand what I'm trying to say instead of nitpicking at my words.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
I just realized that the budget for the federal government's subsidies to private insurers under the ACA is quite close to the federal government's military budget, both being a hair short of $1 trillion per year. I wonder which of the two is responsible for more deaths per year. I also wonder what modest cuts to the funding for each, instead of year-after-year increases, could provide in the way of good that saves lives instead of destroying them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:No, he did not literally, explicitly say that they were backed into a corner, and if that's what you're expecting me to provide for you then I'm sorry. But using rhetoric such as "not everyone gets what they want" or "that's the responsibility of governance" shows that the message they want to convey is that they had no choice but to accept this terrible compromise. I'd appreciate if you could make a reasonable attempt to understand what I'm trying to say instead of nitpicking at my words. You're giving Biden too much credit. He is not using 'backed into a corner' framing... he's using 'we did our jobs, deal with it' framing.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:So republicans have found the perfect mechanism to get guaranteed concessions on a regular timeline forever, and there’s nothing anyone in the US can do about it? Honestly, as long as they have control of the house they can dig in their heels on all sorts of things, stuff like "give us what we want or we'll never pass a budget" or "give us what we want or we'll never allow any legislation you want to even come to the floor". The debt limit is an easy way to score highly visible points because it effectively turns a nothingburger of an issue into an economy-exploding crisis, but even if it were gone forever it wouldn't remove the ability for the Republicans to take hostages on a periodic basis as long as they hold the house. This is just sort of the natural result of the increasing polarization of an already terrible two party system.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They can get a sufficiently blue congress, with a constituent base sufficiently sane about the national debt that the debt ceiling can be removed by the same mechanism that introduced it without handing Congress to the Rs. You can just say "No, there's nothing that can be done".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You can just say "No, there's nothing that can be done". That's the long and short of it, yes. There's a lot that can theoretically be done, but nothing that will actually happen or permanently address the issue even if it was.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
I think it was Leon who mentioned a while back that Sen. Bob Menendez was under investigation for corruption once again; here are the deets:quote:Sources familiar with the matter say Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, along with FBI and IRS-Criminal Investigation agents are looking into whether the senator and his wife, Nadine Arslanian, improperly took gifts from the owner or associates of IS EG Halal — and whether the senator took any action in return. Menendez is up for reelection next year so it'll be interesting to see if he faces any primary challengers or announces retirement.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Kanos posted:That's the long and short of it, yes. There's a lot that can theoretically be done, but nothing that will actually happen or permanently address the issue even if it was. lol yeah. If we're at the point where we're acting like their hands are tied because the constituents are too insane just say no. Pack it up and say "No, nothing".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4024194-mccarthy-student-loan-payment-pause-gone-under-debt-ceiling-deal/quote:Speaker Kevin McCarthy said on Sunday described the student loan payment pause as “gone” as part of the debt ceiling deal announced by the California Republican and President Biden late Saturday night. Cool cool cool. Let's force people to start paying loans again during sky-high inflation and a huge economic downward turn. This is a great idea to force those people to give money to banks instead of back into the economy. Great job Joe.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
At the end of the day we’re talking about a president who secured $4 trillion in new non-defense discretionary spending and then bungled into having to give back about $600 billion of it back. It’s ridiculous to compare it to an actually-fiscally-conservative-administration with a genuine interest in reducing the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Honestly the US best hope against climate change is probably the military deciding to do something about it. the military is intensely interested in both green energy for its own purposes, and writing briefs about "uh we already have geopolitical problems from climate crisis adjacent situations and it's only gonna get more common" Gumball Gumption posted:Codifying the plan to end the student loan payments pause but leaving room for a future pause in a future emergency is also part of the deal. Yeah i'd been wondering about that particular inclusion. I think you're right. This might also, in theory, give it a tiny little bit more legal cover next time the federal government needs to use it. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Codifying the plan to end the student loan payments pause but leaving room for a future pause in a future emergency is also part of the deal. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4024194-mccarthy-student-loan-payment-pause-gone-under-debt-ceiling-deal/ It's both a nothing burger and also an interesting indicator. The Dems gave up nothing because this was always the plan but also if you think the white house was playing 4d chess around the pause, no they were not. This indicates they're fine with the pause happening since it gives up any methods they might have to bring it back while they get to a decision on forgiveness outside of a new emergency.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Even if you went to the court with a 14th amendment argument, they're not limited to a strict "debt ceiling, Y/N" response. It's entirely possible you'd get something like "In a 5-4 decision, the Constitution requires repayment of government bonds to be prioritized. The Treasury department must issue those payments. To resolve the statutory conflict between the debt ceiling law and other laws requiring payments, favor the most recently passed law and skip non-debt payments (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/...) as necessary until things balance."
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Even if you went to the court with a 14th amendment argument, they're not limited to a strict "debt ceiling, Y/N" response. What part of the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court power to dictate the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that hypothetical ruling seems to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4024194-mccarthy-student-loan-payment-pause-gone-under-debt-ceiling-deal/ The loan pause ending soon isn't actually a new concession - the administration had already committed to ending the pause if the Supreme Court ruled the forgiveness unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court should be ruling on that within a month or two. It says a lot that McCarthy is trumpeting a total non-concession like this as a win, though. It suggests that he's eager to negotiate a deal, to the point where he's willing to basically make up fake concessions in hopes that the House GOP will see this as a bigger win than it actually is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:So how much longer are we supposed to keep pretending this administration hasn't largely amounted to the same effect as a second Trump term? Roe v Wade rolled back, social services slashed to the bone, child poverty doubled, kids still in cages, rail unions smashed, defense budget skyrocketing. There's no real way to know what things would be like if we were in the middle of a 2nd Trump term. Unfortunately we may know soon. But regardless of how much of a disappointment Biden is I can only imagine it would be way worse if Trump was in office right now. Also what the gently caress could Biden have done about Roe Vs Wade?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:What part of the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court power to dictate the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that hypothetical ruling seems to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause. Constitutionally, the Supreme Court has no power whatsoever over anything, which seems like a little bit of an oversight so way back when they gave themselves the power to interpret existing law (in this case the 14th Amendment I guess). The idea being that it's Congress's fault for writing ambiguous laws, and if they don't like it they can just change the law to specify what exactly they meant.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:What part of the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court power to dictate the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that hypothetical ruling seems to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause. And I'm sure the ultra-supreme court will overturn oh wait poo poo FlapYoJacks posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4024194-mccarthy-student-loan-payment-pause-gone-under-debt-ceiling-deal/ The "brings in $5 billion each month to the American public" quote is amazing in how much of a bold faced lie it is. It's doing the literal opposite of that. KillHour fucked around with this message at 22:39 on May 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:What part of the Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court power to dictate the budget? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that hypothetical ruling seems to me like a violation of the separation of powers clause.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:Stupid question: obviously it's never going to happen politically, but constitutionally is there anything stopping the president from ordering the military to feed the hungry and build homes for the homeless? They do that when there are natural disasters, right? One question would be where is the money for the houses coming from. Congress appropriates funds to the military, but for specific things like salary and missiles, not so much lumber and feeding people. That's mostly what FEMA does. The military does help with natural disasters, if they are serious enough and the governor okays it. That's based on the Stafford Act. They don't do a lot of law enforcement, since that's prohibited by Posse Comitatus (national guard units are a bit different).  From reading about this, it looks like a lot of what the military-proper does is help FEMA with transport and logistics during hurricanes.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:03
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:In the hypothetical, it'd be normal statuary interpretation. Congress passed a law, then later passed an incompatible law without explicitly repealing the first. Resolving that situation is an ordinary thing the courts routinely do. I agree that the Supreme Court could rule on which law takes precedence - the law setting the debt ceiling or the law setting the budget. However, I don't believe that the Constitution gives them the power to dictate specifics on the budget themselves like your hypothetical did. And "sure" they could just claim it, but if they overreach too much, eventually people are going to stop obeying them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
KillHour posted:And I'm sure the ultra-supreme court will overturn oh wait poo poo It kind of feels like the inverse of how we talk about “the US” owing $x of debt when the majority of that money is owed to American citizens. Hell, probably some the government effectively owes itself.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 23:17
|
|