HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can Obama refuse to negot...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:39 PM

Can Obama refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling?

from what we've been hearing ever since early 2011, failure to raise the debt ceiling will have worldwide consequences.

It is very fair to say that the GOP is willing to risk those consequences if they don't get what they want, which is spending cuts.

Obama has said he won't negotiate, but is that his choice? Does he have to negotiate with the GOP to save the global economy? The GOP is saying no, he doesn't have that choice. That's how they're wording it. Are they right?

26 replies, 1696 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can Obama refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling? (Original post)
Enrique Jan 2013 OP
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #1
Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #2
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #12
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #18
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #5
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #7
Enrique Jan 2013 #8
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #15
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #4
amandabeech Jan 2013 #11
unblock Jan 2013 #6
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #14
unblock Jan 2013 #16
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #19
Hugabear Jan 2013 #24
wandy Jan 2013 #9
ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #10
wandy Jan 2013 #21
unblock Jan 2013 #17
wandy Jan 2013 #20
unblock Jan 2013 #22
wandy Jan 2013 #23
unblock Jan 2013 #25
wandy Jan 2013 #26
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #13

Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:42 PM

1. There is some speculation there are ways around the debt ceiling...

See for example this DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101652048

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:43 PM

2. He can pay them back with their own coin; a trillion dollar coin.

If the Republicans in Congress are really irresponsible and outrageous enough to hold the reputation and economy of the United States of America hostage just to win a few re-election points, then perhaps the appropriate response is for the Treasury to save the country by minting a "trillion-dollar coin."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:17 PM

12. What a symbol that would be...

 

Never happen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:31 PM

18. The problem with that is most everyone will begin to think the nation is a farce

And that the dollar has no real value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:45 PM

3. It is for Congress to come up with something to put on the President's desk

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:47 PM

5. If they do nothing, the executive branch grinds to a halt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:01 PM

7. Then it grinds to a halt

Congress needs to start earning their money
they need to start getting things done
Congress has the job to debate and pass bills ........
The President has stated what he wants

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:12 PM

8. what about the consequences?

can he just let that happen, and then say it's the GOP's fault. Or is he obligated to step in and prevent that from happening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:22 PM

15. How long are you willing to keep putting up with the republicans being terrorists??

It has to stop .......
Every time the democrats give more and more to these terrorists and it puts the country further into a third world country ......

For myself I am getting tired of it and it is past the time to let the country see the republicans for what they are ........... either they are terrorists or Satan's minions ........... or they could be both

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:46 PM

4. Not sure either side wants brinksmanship

But the current law will force a shutdown/slowdown if there is no agreement. Some agreement with be forged and both sides will claim victory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:17 PM

11. The Tea-nuts love brinksmanship because it gets attention to their cause.

The way Boehner got around this was to dump the Hastert rule requiring that any legislation presented to the House by a Republican must pass the Republican caucus.

If Boehner will continue to operate in this manner, and I'm not sure if he will, then there will be a deal or deals.

Otherwise, I'm thinking that the teanutters will cause problems, even though there are probably fewer of them for this term of the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 01:51 PM

6. there are a few possible options as i see it:

1) come to SOME agreement that raises the debt limit.
2) convince to media that republicans are the jerks here and force them to cave.
3) invoke the 14th amendment -- untested, and i think it's a temporary remedy at best. republicans can always force the issue when the annual appropriations bill come up.
4) mint a trillion-dollar coin. untested, but i'm not sure it wouldn't work. the right-wing will howl the government is "printing money" ("minting money" would be more accurate and also alliterative, but it hasn't been imbued with the negative connotations that "printing money" has) but it's kinda funny money anyway and as obama says, congress authorized this spending in the first place.
5) selectively default on certain government obligations. i think the social security trust fund offers that possibility because they get issued a special series of treasuries, so a default on those wouldn't affect anyone else, and treasury would make social security whole once the situation is resolved. but, ... ugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:21 PM

14. The coin should have Ronald Reagan's face in it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:22 PM

16. ++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:34 PM

19. The statute about platinum coins gives the Treasury Secretary wide latitude

 

as regards design, size, denomination, etc.



And the only other statute that must be obeyed is no coin can depict the face of any living person, so Reagan fits aptly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:26 PM

24. There is only one face that should appear on the trillion dollar coin



Sorry, had to let the nerd in me slip out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:12 PM

9. 14.4 Yes he can refuse to have the country held hostage....

The Fourteenth 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Most assuredly the Teapublicans will raise all unholy hell. I wonder if he could even defend it's use.
But what the hell, a good portion of our red footed friends have other problems with the 14th amendment.

Bring it on. It's well past time to challenge the corporate owned, self diluted Teapublican party and their brain dead Astroturf drunken followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:17 PM

10. This administration has already acknowledged the legitimacy

of the debt limit.

Risking government stability on a new interpretation of the 14th amendment is somewhere between unwise and foolhardy. Obama is neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:46 PM

21. This is not a new interpretation......

Their was justifiable fear that the repatriated confederate states would renege on US commitments.
Now their is justifiable fear that a group of corporate owned lapdogs will renege on US commitments.
Defaulting on loan commitments was every bit as bad when the 14th amendment was written as it is now.
People with poor credit ratings have a hard time getting loans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:24 PM

17. this lets treasury pay existing debt, but doesn't let treasury issue new debt.

so i don't see it as doing more than buying perhaps a month or two.

in any event it certainly doesn't get us past the annual appropriations drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:35 PM

20. Agreed. At the moment paying existing debt is called for....

The use of 14.4 will send a powerful message.
President Obama (and a good number of the American people) will no longer negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers.
Should have been done long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:46 PM

22. but soon enough we get to the point where we need to issue more debt

and then we're back to square one in terms of negotiating with the hostage takers.

so i don't see this as reasonably helping the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:21 PM

23. Agreed again, long term....

In any hostage situation, initially the hostage takers have the upper hand.
The trick is to deny them that.
Short of giving away the farm (social safety net, corporate free rides and the like) the republicans have proven unwilling to negotiate.
Poorly planned excessive use of force will have the undesirable effect of also killing the hostages.
The republicans may see the use of 14.4 as if the building were surrounded by armed police and lunch is going to be a little late.
You're right, not the long solution at all.
Got any better ideas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wandy (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:58 PM

25. the trillion-dollar coin idea seems safer and more legally sound

at the end of the day, they can always dig their heels in on the annual appropriations bills.

but that's less of a hostage situation unless they want to do a government shutdown thing. that didn't work out too well for newtie.

in truth, this is a political problem and politics is the only real answer. if republicans appear to be standing strong to do the right thing, they win. if republicans appear to be threatening to destroy america for the sake of narrow special interests, they lose.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:39 PM

26. Not bad. I'm just not so sure about legally sound.....

Basically, the "trillion-dollar coin" would just allow the Treasury, which pays the country's bills, to keep writing checks regardless of what Congress does with the debt ceiling.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1

I'm not sure the Treasury has the authority to do this.
Basically congress approves the spending of money (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022129991) and congress pays the bills. At least thats how I think it works.

On the gripping hand, it would defuse at least for now the hostage situation.
As the article points out...

It is an absurd legal gimmick that would ordinarily be the furthest thing from the minds of serious, responsible people who have been elected to lead this great country through a challenging period.
But the problem is that some of the people who have been elected to lead this country have revealed themselves to be unserious, irresponsible people.
How?
By threatening to turn the United States of America into a deadbeat nation that refuses to pay its bills.
That's right.
A handful of Republicans in Congress are threatening to refuse to allow the United States Of America to pay the bills and fulfill commitments that the United States Of America has already promised to pay and fulfill.

Anything that denies the advantage to a group of whackjobs who's ideology is solely driven by their corporate pay checks is worth trying.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:20 PM

13. Sure he can.

 

He simply needs to keep pushing the fact that, by law, the Congress has spent the money and now they are refusing to take out a loan to pay the bill on the money they already spent.

When they demand spending cuts he can say, "We already made those cuts and they kick in next month. If you want to have a separate debate about what we cut and how much those cuts should be, we'll have that in the context of the debate about those cuts that are already set to go in place, but for now, Congress has a choice to make. Either the Congress takes out a loan to pay the bills on the money they already spent by law, or the Congress defaults on the financial obligations Congress has already incurred."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread