but we finance them with fake money so of course they are us!

11/27/2012 3:51:17 PM

so the democrats were against across the board tax cuts 12 years ago and they still are, but when they expire its going to be the republicans fault. makes perfect sense to me

12/1/2012 6:24:57 AM

Quote :

"but we finance them with fake money so of course they are us!"

Why don't you substitute "we" , "they", "us" , and "them" with actual names.

12/1/2012 7:43:06 AM

Quote :

"Nancy Pelosi: Give Obama dictatorial power to raise debt limit to infinity On Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she supports giving Barack Obama the power to unilaterally raise the debt limit to infinity, bypassing Congress in a move that clearly violates the Constitution, CNS News reported. According to Terence P. Jeffrey, "a reporter asked Pelosi if she agreed with a proposal made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that Congress give Obama the power to unilaterally increase the debt limit." "Yes," she said."

http://www.examiner.com/article/nancy-pelosi-give-obama-dictatorial-power-to-raise-debt-limit-to-infinity


Sworn to uphold constitution... Suggests unconstitutional solutions.
Holds the seat of House Minority LEADER.

12/2/2012 2:45:15 PM

I'll bite.

What is unconstitutional about the President raising the debt limit?

12/2/2012 4:17:31 PM

The constitution doesn't give that power to the president. It gives the power to handle the debt to Congress.

12/2/2012 4:21:59 PM

So I'm not forced to assume what you're thinking, what does 'handle the debt' mean?

12/2/2012 4:25:39 PM

As far as I can recollect, there isn't a place in the Constitution that says the President has any power over the fiscal policy.

12/2/2012 4:28:48 PM

Should the Executive create and submit recommended budgets to Congress?

12/2/2012 4:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Should the Executive create and submit recommended budgets to Congress?"

Is that an opinion question?

I believe anyone should be allowed to create and submit budget ideas to Congress if Congress can't figure out what to do.

12/2/2012 5:00:45 PM

I only ask because the budget is typically submitted by the President, and so it would seem the President does in fact have at least some influence over fiscal policy. The Constitution's silence on a subject is not in and of itself a basis for determining constitutionality.

How is the President raising the debt limit unconstitutional? How does the President having the power to raise the debt limit infringe on fiscal powers specifically allocated to Congress by the Constitution?

12/2/2012 5:10:11 PM

The plain words, or lack thereof, of the Constitution prohibit the Executive branch from making any final decisions on the budget.

The constitution only tells the Federal government what it can do. Anything not expressed in the Constitution means the Federal government cannot do it.

This argument is difficult for many people to grasp since the government oversteps its boundary of the constitution in so many ways.

A majority of the problems in the nation can be traced back to the government overstepping its Constitutional restraints.

Knowing this, you can see why it's unconstitutional for a president to raise the debt limits. The final fiscal decisions is offlimits to the executive branch.

12/2/2012 5:54:34 PM

The Constitution is actually quite explicit concerning 'final decisions on the budget' (i.e., approving the budget). However, approving the budget is not at all the same thing as raising the debt limit.

Quote :

"The constitution only tells the Federal government what it can do. Anything not expressed in the Constitution means the Federal government cannot do it."

How strict is your interpretation of this?

Also, what are "final fiscal decisions"?

12/2/2012 6:03:45 PM

Quote :

"How strict is your interpretation of this? Also, what are "final fiscal decisions"?"

I intend my interpretation to be as strict as possible. If there is anything that absolutely must be in the Constitution, there is a way to amend the Constitution in order to ratify this "absolutely necessary" change.

Unfortunately, there is no way to stop an entirely corrupt government from passing amendments that are against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the people.

It is at that time when the people need to stand up against the government and attempt to reinstall proper order through the election process or to physically oust the government , which is the entire purpose of the second amendment to ensure.


"final fiscal decisions"

The definition of "Final Fiscal Decisions" means the final say in the wording of the fiscal policy in the bill before the president gives it a signature or a veto.

The veto power is a check and balance. The president can suggest rewording and suggest which words to use, but the congress doesn't have to agree to those new words.

The congress can choose to override a veto if absolutely necessary. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

12/2/2012 10:17:51 PM

Quote :

"How strict is your interpretation of this? Also, what are "final fiscal decisions"?"

I intend my interpretation to be as strict as possible. If there is anything that absolutely must be in the Constitution, there is a way to amend the Constitution in order to ratify this "absolutely necessary" change.

Unfortunately, there is no way to stop an entirely corrupt government from passing amendments that are against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the people.

It is at that time when the people need to stand up against the government and attempt to reinstall proper order through the election process or to physically oust the government , which is the entire purpose of the second amendment to ensure.


"final fiscal decisions"

The definition of "Final Fiscal Decisions" means the final say in the wording of the fiscal policy in the bill before the president gives it a signature or a veto.

The veto power is a check and balance. The president can suggest rewording and suggest which words to use, but the congress doesn't have to agree to those new words.

The congress can choose to override a veto if absolutely necessary. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

12/2/2012 10:17:51 PM

Quote :

"How strict is your interpretation of this? Also, what are "final fiscal decisions"?"

I intend my interpretation to be as strict as possible. If there is anything that absolutely must be in the Constitution, there is a way to amend the Constitution in order to ratify this "absolutely necessary" change.

Unfortunately, there is no way to stop an entirely corrupt government from passing amendments that are against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the people.

It is at that time when the people need to stand up against the government and attempt to reinstate proper order through the election process or to physically oust the government , which is the entire purpose of the second amendment to ensure.


"final fiscal decisions"

The definition of "Final Fiscal Decisions" means the final say in the wording of the fiscal policy in the bill before the president gives it a signature or a veto.

The veto power is a check and balance. The president can suggest rewording and suggest which words to use, but the congress doesn't have to agree to those new words.

The congress can choose to override a veto if absolutely necessary. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

12/2/2012 10:18:13 PM

Going back to the question of what's unconstitutional about the President having the power to raise the debt limit, it's because debt limits are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution?

Is that right?

12/2/2012 10:27:02 PM

Quote :

"Going back to the question of what's unconstitutional about the President having the power to raise the debt limit, it's because debt limits are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution? Is that right?"

That is right, it is not in the Executive Branch's job description to touch financial issues regarding the money on the credit of the United States.

I assume you've already read the article that I posted, the part in the Constitution that gave this power to Congress? If not, it's Article 1, Section 8.

12/2/2012 11:31:23 PM

The Constitution doesn't explicitly discuss debt limits.

Is it Constitutional to even have a debt limit, regardless of which branch administers it?

12/3/2012 12:48:00 AM

Quote :

"The Constitution doesn't explicitly discuss debt limits. Is it Constitutional to even have a debt limit, regardless of which branch administers it?"

Based on my interpretation, the debt limit isn't unconstitutional since it was approved by an Act of Congress.

By chance a Congressional Act is unconstitutional, the judicial branch may make that declaration. The law is not removed from the books; however, the declaration prevents the law from being enforced.

Before World War 1, The government had to seek permission from Congress every single time it wanted to borrow money. This process was too slow for war, I guess, so they let the government have an allowance to spend money without needing congressional consent. Therefore, in 1917, just four years after the creation of the Federal Reserve and three years after the start of the World War I (which ended in 1918), the Second Liberty Bond Act was passed to gave the US Treasury permission to issue long-term debt without a specific purpose or project defined. The Treasury was also given the power to decide maturity dates and interest rate levels, which were previously decided by Congress.

12/3/2012 2:27:11 AM

What are reasons against the President raising the debt limit?

12/3/2012 10:42:55 AM

Quote :

"What are reasons against the President raising the debt limit?"

The debt limit is the only mechanism stopping the government from printing and spending debt-money to infinity.

People exist that can't save a penny to save their life. No matter how big of a paycheck they earn, they always blow it frivolously and end up being broke and in debt. Everyone should know at least one person like this because they're pretty common. The government is proven to be bad with money.

There is a show on the discovery channel that shows past lottery winners, featuring the lottery winners who blow their entire fortune on gambling or miscellaneous in a matter of a couple years. They call it the lottery curse. It's not really a curse at all, it's what happens when you give LOTS of money to someone who malinvests their money. The simple act of buying lottery tickets is an example of malinvestment in the first place, so it makes sense that these some many lottery winners go broke. When the money runs out, they are forced to stop spending. Why? There is no more money.

Had someone responsible, like a financial planner, put a "spending limit" on the lottery winners, let's say $2400 a month. That money would have lasted them 3333 months, or 277 years without investing the money or collecting interest. Imagine if that money was invested wisely, how long it would last. Instead, they blew it in 3 to 10 years.

The "debt limit" is the same as a "spending limit" except more grim. The debt limit is like giving the government lump sum lottery winnings in the form of debt. It gets to spend trillions of dollars it doesn't own. The dangerous difference about debt money and real money is debt money never runs out like real money. The only thing stopping anyone from spending more debt money is their debt limit or "credit limit".

It's already been proven that the government can't live within its means because the debt limit has been increased more than several times and the debt is still maxed out. Giving the president full power of his own credit limit is a surefire way to spend money into worthlessness. If you value the strength of a dollar, you should be staunchly against the idea of the president controlling his own credit limit.

TL;DR version: Giving the president power over the debt limit is like trusting a proven repeat-offender by giving him a key to his own jail cell.

12/3/2012 1:35:59 PM

the debt limit is a lot different than a spending limit on account of it being money that has already been spent. this is also why arguments against raising the limit is dumb.

it would be the same as limiting your pizza shops spending by not paying the bills for things you already purchased.

12/3/2012 1:49:34 PM

Congress spends money, not the prez, fyi.

also:

Quote :

"it would be the same as limiting your pizza shops spending by not paying the bills for things you already purchased."

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2012 1:59:12 PM

The funniest part about the "fiscal cliff" is how everybody's terrified as shit about deficit reduction actually occurring, and suddenly the GOP is full of Keynesians who suddenly understand that sucking a shitload of government spending out the GDP will lead to a recession. Weird little moments like this pull back the veil quite nicely.

12/3/2012 2:00:47 PM

Quote :

"the debt limit is a lot different than a spending limit on account of it being money that has already been spent."

Debt money doesn't necessarily mean it's already spent. If I say, "Hey dtownral, I have a $100 you can borrow anytime you want".

Your debt limit is $100.
Money spent: $0
Money available: $100.

If I wasn't available with this offer, you would have had to stop spending money when you ran out of real money. If you spend my money, you'd have to pay me back. If you spent your own money, you pay nobody back. Just because it's available doesn't mean you have to use it.

12/3/2012 2:00:55 PM

^^ hey now, defense spending is for Amurica! It's our patriotic god-given duty to never discuss or hint at reducing defense spending!

^we have to raise our debt limit because of things we have already spent

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM. Reason : dumbass]

12/3/2012 3:04:33 PM

Quote :

"we have to raise our debt limit because of things we have already spent"

We don't have to.

12/3/2012 3:16:19 PM

you're right, we could default on our debt payments, watch our credit rating tumble, and send the world into a huge economic recession

great plan

12/3/2012 3:32:09 PM

Quote :

"you're right, we could default on our debt payments, watch our credit rating tumble, and send the world into a huge economic recession great plan"

Whose fault is that?

12/3/2012 3:34:00 PM

the dumb ass pizza guy who thought that debt limits should be used to control spending and ignored that debt is money that has already been spent

12/3/2012 3:37:21 PM

It's unacceptable that you don't know whose fault it is for spending all the credit the Congress gave to the government.

12/3/2012 3:44:17 PM

i know whose fault it would be that didn't raise the debt limit and collapsed the worlds economy, it would be the guy who didn't raise the debt limit.

12/3/2012 3:50:12 PM

You don't fully grasp the concept of a debt limit. A debt limit is not a debt limit if it can be changed. A debt limit is a jail cell to confine spending within a certain dollar amount. If you keep raising the debt limit, then it's not a debt limit at all.

Do you know what happens when there is no debt limit?

12/3/2012 3:54:21 PM

FREEDOM

12/3/2012 3:55:19 PM

^Right! Freedom to spend an unlimited amount of money.


So why can't we print money to pay off our debt?

12/3/2012 3:57:09 PM

Because this isn't my nose; it's a false one?

12/3/2012 4:01:42 PM

Quote :

"You don't fully grasp the concept of a debt limit. "

no you don't understand that our need to increase the debt limit is because of spending and actions that have already taken place. if you want to reduce new spending that's great, but suddenly deciding to not increase the debt limit is a terrible terrible dumb plan.

12/3/2012 4:23:45 PM

lets just make it $20T.

thats a nice round number.

12/3/2012 4:39:18 PM

Quote :

"no you don't understand that our need to increase the debt limit is because of spending and actions that have already taken place. if you want to reduce new spending that's great, but suddenly deciding to not increase the debt limit is a terrible terrible dumb plan."

Again,

you have no earthly idea what you're talking about nor do you know the implications of what you're suggesting.

12/3/2012 4:41:47 PM

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

12/3/2012 4:50:08 PM

I like how everyone is still pretending that there's some way to address these budget problems not involving pain for anyone except the wealthiest 2%. It's sad to see that kind of widespread delusion.

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2012 5:13:14 PM

That's true about literally no one in here, this is a geniusboy thread

12/3/2012 6:15:29 PM

Quote :

"I like how everyone is still pretending that there's some way to address these budget problems not involving pain for anyone except the wealthiest 2%. It's sad to see that kind of widespread delusion."

Well, since we're still stuck in a liquidity trap, we could simply grow the economy and jumpstart consumer spending with a second major stimulus program and probably get out of this thing for good (if it's large enough).

Oh wait, the country still suffers a widespread delusion that our problems are supply-side. Nevermind.

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2012 6:19:03 PM

12/3/2012 7:11:49 PM

Quote :

"Oh wait, the country still suffers a widespread delusion that our problems are supply-side."

It's not delusion, it's ignorance.

And the supply siders have better marketing.

It's easy to get someone on tv to say "give me money and ill make more jobs" rather to to get someone to say "let's let all of you make more money so you'll want more things from me so I will NEED to create more jobs."

And it's more difficult to explain demand problems than supply, even though you'd think it should be more intuitive.

12/3/2012 7:23:15 PM

Quote :

"Well, since we're still stuck in a liquidity trap, we could simply grow the economy and jumpstart consumer spending with a second major stimulus program and probably get out of this thing for good (if it's large enough)."

How much stimulus do you think would be enough? Is there any amount that would be excessive, i.e. doing more harm than good? I assume that Congress would be appropriating these funds. Which departments should get priority?

12/3/2012 8:15:28 PM

If we're so hot to trot to cut spending, where do we start?

12/3/2012 8:32:52 PM

The answer is obvious, but the military budget is the least likely to see massive cuts. The rest of the world would take notice of a U.S. military cutback and I think it would serve to undermine global confidence in the American economy's...uh...sustainability.

When you've got the biggest guns and bases all over the place, economic fundamentals matter a little bit less. At least for a while.

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2012 9:23:33 PM

The Soviet Union collapsed in the Cold War for a reason. Can you figure out why?


Spoiler in the edit: message_editpost.aspx?edit=15632074

12/3/2012 9:38:27 PM