We might as well go ahead and default.

[MadHound]

The fact of the matter is that politically speaking, if we default, the 'Pugs are going to get the blame. Defaulting would also mean that we wouldn't get one of these increasingly worse "deals" that the Obama administration keeps putting out there. I live in dread of the moment when the 'Pugs take Obama up on one of these draconian deals. Finally, to save the country, without having to sacrifice it, Obama can invoke the 14th Amendment solution and throw it to the courts.

That is the best solution to this mess that we have right now, because these "deals" that Obama is offering are a travesty, a travesty that will once again do much damage to the poor, middle and working classes.

So let us go ahead and default.

[DonCoquixote]

1. no offense meant but

you realize that the whole country may go down the toilet especially those of us on social security?

[MadHound]

3. No offense, but did you read the part about Obama using the 14th amendment solution?

I don't want this country to default, but neither do I want a "deal" that cuts even deeper into the poor, middle and working class. You're getting SS now, and don't want to see it disappear during a default. I don't blame you.

I'm due to start getting SS in about seventeen years. I don't want to see it whittled back to the point where it has all but vanished when I reach retirement age.

[DCBob]

2. If we default the poor will suffer even more.

naive and dangerous thinking.

[MadHound]

5. Did you read the part about Obama using the 14th amendment solution?

I'm not advocating that Obama let's it all go. But neither do I think we can afford one of these "deals" Obama is kicking out there.

[DonCoquixote]

6. check out my thread

where people trashed the 14th amendment solution, as Fat Tony will kill it.

[Chan790]

50. Fat Tony is on the Wall St. take.

And when you're on the take from that kind of money, you do what the money wants. There is a downside to selling your ethics to people like that...they're psychopathic and you're easily replaced by someone who knows how to make good on an "expenses-paid trip to a legal conference" in Aruba.

[DCBob]

7. Did you read what Obama said about using the 14th amendment solution?

He cant do it on his own legally.

[MadHound]

9. Well, that is up for debate

I kind of like Clinton's attitude on the matter. Let's throw it into the court and see what happens. My bet, the pro-corporate court would rule it Constitutional.

That's the best that we have left, because these deals are unacceptable.

[DCBob]

11. Obama's legal advisors said it isnt legal.. but he also added he couldn't do it legally "on my own".

Which I assume he meant if congress gives him the authority then we will do it. Which is where I suspect this is headed.

[MadHound]

13. Obama, like a lot of other presidents, says a lot of things,

But the fact of the matter is that the use of the 14th amendment is a viable, if drastic, step to take. Again, I think that the pro-corporate SC will give it a pass.

But these deals that are getting kicked out there, sorry, they are unfair and inhumane. And at this point, politically speaking, if we default, the 'Pugs get the blame.

This can be a winning situation for Obama if he has the courage to take it.

Hell, even Clinton is urging the 14th amendment solution:shrug:

[flamingdem]

24. That would be really interesting and preferable..

he said I believe that the debt ceiling is procedural not constitutional so his lawyers advised him it would be a difficult argument.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I can't get rid of the image of Obama trying to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg

and Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell wresting away the wheel and steering it back. Fucking game of chicken.

[DCBob]

8. indeed. that would make a great political cartoon.

and so precisely true.

[TBF]

29. That's what I see as well -

and I keep wondering what else we're NOT watching while this drama is playing out ...

[Politicalboi]

60. Well April 15th 2012 is the 100th anniversary

Can we hold out that long? Time again will tell.

[Cool Logic]

10. The 14th does not authorize additional borrowing...

It requires the US pay its debts, which can be accomplished without raising the debt ceiling.

[MadHound]

12. It is a point up for legal debate, nobody really has the definitive answer.

So throw it into the pro corporation courts, and my guess, they will approve it. They don't want to see their precious corporations and the investor class get burned, so they will pass muster on it.

[Cool Logic]

19. You seem to be suggesting that an un-Constitutional decision by the "pro corporation courts" is

an acceptable solution.

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.

The public debt is represented by the bonds and the interest payments associated with them.

Given that Article 1, Section 8, delegates the power to borrow to the Congress, how is possible to interpret the above statement (from the 14th) as one that delegates unilateral power to borrow, to the President?

The SC has rendered un-Constitutional decisions in the past, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson. Likewise, a SC decision that "legalized" a 14th Amendment solution to the debt ceiling crisis, would simply be another un-Constitutional SC decision.

[MadHound]

20. Let's see, who to believe. An anonymous internet poster, or actual experts in the field.

I think I'll stick with the experts.
"Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that the Constitution may trump the debt ceiling, allowing the administration a way out of the default impasse."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/frank-dismisses-14th-amendment-option_n_892492.html>

"Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that the constitutional solution puts the question in its proper context -- that the debate is over paying past debts, not over future spending."
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html>

"A leading Senate Democrat on Thursday raised the possibility of using the so-called "14th Amendment solution" in future debt-ceiling debates."
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/170193-schumer-threatens-14th-amendment-solution-for-next-round-of-debt-ceiling-talks>

Again, at worst it would become a Constitutional crisis, something comes along once every twenty years. Better to have a Constitutional crisis than consigning millions to impoverishment or defaulting on our debt.

But nice to see that an anonymous internet poster thinks they know more about the Constitution than scores of lawyers now in public office, and more than members of the Supreme Court.:eyes:

[Cool Logic]

21. "I think I'll stick with the experts"

That's what the supporters of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision said.

The Constitution is not that hard to understand; it was written that way in order to "sell" it to the People. You only need an "expert" if you are looking for a way to traverse its limitations and rewrite reality.

[MadHound]

23. Yeah, right, the Constitution is so easy to understand

That we have to have a Supreme Court in order to interpret it, and a platoon of Constitutional lawyers in order to make sense of it.

Yet you persist in the notion that you, who is neither a Supreme Court justice(or justice of any kind), nor a Constitutional lawyer, can come up with the penultimate interpretation of what the Constitution stands for simply by cherry picking a couple of cases and venting lots of hot air.

Again, I think I'll stick with the experts.

[Cool Logic]

26. The corporations have a "platoon of Constitutional lawyers in order to make sense of it."

Regrettably, the corporation's "platoon of Constitutional lawyers" have convinced "the pro corporation courts" to "make sense of it" for the past hundred years or so.

That is one of the primary reasons we are in the mess we are in. So, while you are free to "stick with (your) experts," I think I will go with the real experts.

[MadHound]

31. Which is why defaulting is a genius move,

We aren't forced into a deal that costs millions dearly, and the pro-corporate SC won't rule against Obama.

Or we can go with your strict Constitutionalist viewpoint(which is very right wing for your information) and cost untold millions of poor, working and middle class their already tenuous position(along with millions of dollars).

Nice to see that you're willing to throw millions of Americans under the bus in order to fulfill your own narrow, inexpert view of the Constitution.

[Cool Logic]

43. Following the law as defined by the Constitution is not, as you say, "right-wing;"

rather, it is the basis of our system of checks and balances.

[Chan790]

52. Originalism is factually RW.

I'd like to see you or anybody other than those blowhards in the Federalist Society construct an argument for how Originalism and any other school of Constitutional thought opposed to interpretation is anything but RW.

Do you want to go one further and claim it requires no interpretation because it's divinely-inspired? A Dominionist Democrat would truly be novel, verily I think DU has never seen one before.

[Cool Logic]

67. What you are advocating is, "legislating from the bench..."

also known as, changing the rules in the middle of the game.

A legal system that is not based on objectively valid principles, is based on the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts. It is arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional.

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. She is not supposed to be emotional.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. So why not? We got into this mess by a ruling

by the pro corporate SCOTUS (Bush over Gore in '00), so why not let them get us out of it? Because they WILL vote the corporations way.

The entire system in this dictatorship of capital is a rigged game from elections to the Judiciary. We might as well take advantage of this one small loophole IN the rigged game that MIGHT benefit the people for a change along WITH benefitting the elite.

[Cool Logic]

42. You don't get it, there is no "small loophole."

What you are advocating is creating something that doesn't exist by ripping another page of truth out of the Constitution and replacing it with a lie--a legal loophole to benefit the elite.

Your endorsement of more "rigging of the game" is contrary to our system of checks and balances. More lies is not the solution; rather, a legal system based on objectively valid principles, is a fundamental requirement for creating and maintaining a free society.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. Oh, I get it. You are the one that doesn't get it

It's there in your post when you talk about "our system of checks and balances" and "maintaining a free society". You sucked down the propaganda kool aid of the dictatorship of capital.


In the dictatorship of capital, IT'S ALL RIGGED TO BENEFIT THE EXPLOITING CLASSES. There's no such thing as "checks and balances". The ENTIRE system is set up to benefit the capitalists, from the rigged elections, to the laws, to the local, state, and national legislatures, to the executives, local, state, and national, to the judiciary, IT'S ALL THERE TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHY. There's NO checks on them and the only balance is to keep them from cheating each other. For a while. Soon even that will go away when the bigger capitalists start devouring the smaller ones.

The only time something benefits the working class it's a total accident. It's the rare "trickle down" from something that mostly benefits the exploiters. So at this point in time when the pretense that this is a "free society" is rapidly going away, if there's something that benefits the wealthy, but also benefits the working class, well I'll take any help I can get now.

[Cool Logic]

48. "dictatorship of capital" What does your fascination with that cliche' have to do with any of this?

...well I'll take any help I can get now."

If the help you get is the result of a lie, you haven't been helped at all. For you have lost more than you will ever gain by creating legal loophole to advance the cause of tyranny.

A government of laws, and not of men. ~ John Adams

[Chan790]

51. I think he's suggesting...

that a Constitutional decision by the pro-corporatist SCOTUS wouldn't be that hard to construct.

Frankly, having voted to authorize the spending once and sent it to the President to sign and to implement; it's hardly a stretch to see how a SCOTUS might rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional as a violation of separation of powers...it's interfering in the ability of the executive branch to implement and enforce the ratified legislation and to carry out its' responsibilities regarding the servicing of public debt as obligated and outlined in the 14th.

[Cool Logic]

57. "Construction," as it relates to the Constitution, is an attachment we call an Amendment.

Rewriting what has already been published, ratified and signed into law, is not permitted. Please see the 21st Amendment, which was published, ratified and signed into law to repeal the 18th Amendment.

The power to borrow is delegated to the Congress in Article 1; accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing. To be clear, enacting legislation that authorizes spending does not entail the authorization to borrow. The are separate and apart, requiring separate legislation, separate votes, separate signings.

I understand that it is possible for the SC to "construct" anything; after all, they did "construct" Plessy v. Ferguson. However, in order to do so, the were forced delegate to themselves some sort of undefined mystical powers, that allowed them to traverse the beyond the boundaries of reason and into the realm of the supernatural.

[Chan790]

61. Um...you're missing something here....

Congress may not use its' control of borrowing power in this way. Period.

This is incorrect: accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing. To be clear, enacting legislation that authorizes spending does not entail the authorization to borrow. The are separate and apart, requiring separate legislation, separate votes, separate signings.

Once a bill is passed that creates an obligation of funding from the Treasury or once we've borrowed the money, those debts may not be questioned by Congress. That means the President has the power to pay those debts and they're obligated to provide the funds for all past debts and legislative obligations. They might say they refuse to borrow money for any future debts or obligations (and they can say that and frankly perhaps they should...but the onus to hold themselves to that lies with them alone and solely through the legislative process) or they might bring bills to de-fund previous pieces of legislation (which they do have to specify by name, may not be done in blanket terms and must consist of unfunded mandates. Something like Social Security or the Postal Service can't be defunded as they funding-means was stipulated when passed and was not funded with borrowed funds.), but the requirement lies with them to rein in spending only through the legislative process. Having failed to do that, they're not allowed to interfere in the powers of the executive by saying that "well we passed it and we can't repeal it so we're going to refuse to borrow the money to pay for it." That kind of procedural malarkey is a violation of the separation of powers. That's what the Questioning Clause of 14 means.

Once it leave their chambers and arrives in the Oval Office and is signed...they're on the hook for the expenditure.

[Cool Logic]

65. Thank you very much for making my point...

once we've borrowed the money, those debts may not be questioned by Congress.

Indeed, subsequent to the legislation required to borrow being passed, those debts may not be questioned by Congress. Given that this money has not yet been borrowed, the debt in question, does not exist. Obama knows this--he is a Constitutional scholar.

Article 1 is dedicated to the enumerated Congressional powers. It contains the authority to borrow money. Article 2 is dedicated to executive branch powers, and says nothing at all about borrowing authority. The president is not a King and the 14th amendment was not intended to give the executive branch the authority to usurp Congressional jurisdiction from the Congress.

Anyone who lends us money above and beyond the amount allowed by law would be doing so at their own risk. Under the doctrine of odious debt, it will be treated as a personal liability of Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner, not as an obligation of the People whose Congress did not approve it.

[Chan790]

66. The obligations-to-fund are the debt themselves.

All the borrowing is, is kicking the debt down the road. It already fully exists. The original bills are fully debt themselves, obligations-to-fund.

Those debts already passed Congress, Congress may not act through refusing to raise the debt ceiling to interfere in the payment of those debts.

I understand where you're hung-up in this...but your base premise is incorrect.

[checks-n-balances]

14. Nope. We'd end up w/economic disaster for middle & lower income

and could still end up losing or having the election stolen, thereby losing EVERYTHING!

[spooked911]

15. what I'd like to see is not default, but Geithner cutting off all federal funding to red states.

Supposedly, Geithner has the power to allocate the spending if the debt ceiling isn't raised. See how quickly the rethugs change their tune.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. You really have no idea what's going on, do you?

Is this all a little DU parlor game for you?

You understand that lives and livelihoods really are at stake, yes, and that this isn't some Civilizations video game that you play with your little friends?

:wow:

[RagAss]

17. Amen.

[MadHound]

18. Oh, I have a full and complete idea of what is going on here,

Namely that Obama is paying for the oft repeated mistake of not standing up to the 'Pugs long ago. If he hadn't caved on the tax extension for the rich, if he had taken the fight to the 'Pugs, with the will of the people behind him, they wouldn't have dared to stand up and play chicken with the debt limit.

But that is water under the bridge now, and we have to deal with what is, right now. The trouble is, what Obama has proposed is not only going to be damaging the poor, the elderly, the working and middle classes for years and year, but it is once again giving in to the the 'Pugs, who will only be more emboldened to continue these tactics.

Better that we don't take one of these poisonous deals, that we go into default. Obama has a strong solution at hand, the 14th amendment solution. Yes, it will provoke a Constitutional crisis, but better that than an economic crisis, or a deal that devastates millions. Call the 'Pugs bluff, and I imagine that our pro-corporate SC will side with Obama, since that is what their corporate masters desire.

Nice to see that you're willing to throw millions under the bus, just so Obama can claim so sort of political victory, even though that victory comes at the expense of millions. How very compassionate of you:eyes:

[sendero]

25. Exatly..

.. Obama is reaping his "bipartisan appeasement" strategy and it's coming up way short as anyone with any sense knew it would. No other president has had to give up the store to get the stupid debt ceiling passed.

And the TP jackasses don't care two shits about the deficit or they would do what virtually every economist and pol says we will have to do, seek solutions on the spend AND the revenue side of the equation. Their unwillingness to do ANY revenue side proves that they are a bunch of hypocrite liars and I wish for JUST ONCE Obama would call their bluff.

[treestar]

28. You know that is getting so old

In this case, standing up to them means a default.

The only possibility of avoiding it is if for some reason the Republicans realize they don't want the default either.

[MadHound]

33. Only reason it is getting old is because Obama continues to do the face plant cave

At every possible opportunity.

Yes, it would mean default. A default that will be put on the shoulders of the 'Pugs. A default that could be easily negated by the President using the 14th amendment solution. Yes, it will provoke a short, sharp Constitutional crisis, one that I'm certain the pro-corporate SC will resolve in favor of Obama.

So what is not to like? The fact that if we take one of these deals, millions of people will see their quality of life decrease precipitously? Thanks, but I'd rather not see that happen.

[treestar]

36. Well if the default occurs and bad things happen

You would lose the right to complain and blame Obama. You'd have to admire his courage for standing up to Republicans no matter what happened.

Making politics about courage may be silly.

[MadHound]

38. "You would lose the right to complain and blame Obama"

Not a big supporter of the First Amendment are you.

The fact of the matter is that if we default, and Obama uses the 14th Amendment option, the only bad thing that would occur is that there would be a Constitutional crisis, one which the SC, being the corporate entity that it is, would support Obama on.

This isn't about making politics about courage, though that is in short supply. This is about not saddling the poor, working and middle classes with the burden of draconian budget cuts while the rich and corporate get off with a slap on the wrist, at best. You know, that whole balance thing.

[treestar]

40. OFFS

You would have the first amendment right to complain, but it would be hypocritical, wouldn't it, if you want Obama to stand up and let the default happen and then you don't like the consequences? Those are the risks of having courage - the downside. You may have the courage to bungee jump but if it turns out badly, you have the broken leg. And don't complain about it.

[MadHound]

41. So, contrariwise, if Obama and the Dems take one of these odius deals,

Does that mean that you would be hypocritical to complain about the pain and suffering that those deals are going to cause for millions of people?

[MilesColtrane]

22. +1

[oldlib]

68. It is the Republicans

that are playing the parlor game. Let them take the heat for default, as the originator of this post suggests. He has thought this out carefully, and I fully approve of this method to solve the default problem.

[treestar]

27. This wouldn't be happening with a Democratic Congress

The deals Obama is offering are to avoid a default, which would presumably be worse.

[MadHound]

34. Default would only be worse if Obama doesn't use the 14th amendment option

Outside of that, all these deals are worse, much worse.

[nolabels]

55. A DLC Senate and flotsam and jetsam House is what we got

President Obama is doing a fine job mixing it up with the fools he has to work with. It would probably better to take the one or two or even more short term hike in prime interest hike that we would get rather than the jacked job the pubs are trying to sell. The way it's going we will probably get the hike. The question i would like to ask is if President Obama can get Academy Award, an Oscar or some other acting award for the superb job he's doing currently ?

[socialshockwave]

32. Some of you DU'ers may scream default

But I know that this Canadian doesn't want your government to default; if you do, we go down in flames with you.

[MadHound]

35. You will go down with us anyway if one of these deals goes through,

It will only be at a slower pace.

Thanks, but I'd rather go the default, combined with the 14th amendment solution, route than taking one of these deals that impoverishes millions.

[reformist2]

37. Does the saying "live to fight another day" mean anything?

We have two choices: Either accept defeat and let the Republicans have their cuts, or try to score a huge victory by calling their bluff, and risk destroying the whole safety net.

Do we really want to take that risk?

If we really believe in democracy, we have to believe that when we take our case to the American people, they will see the error of their ways in 2012 and vote out these right-wing zealots.

[MadHound]

39. Can you say "already defeated"

Because that is what the poor, middle and working classes will be if these cuts go through. I'm not wanting to score a huge victory, I'm wanting to protect what little financial security most Americans have left.

If Obama and the Dems cut SS and/or Medicare/Medicaid, there will be no 2012 election victory for them, because their base, their staunchest supports on the left, in the middle, among the elderly, among the poor, will abandon them just as they were abandoned by this administration and Congress.

[reformist2]

49. Better a small defeat than utterly destroyed. Too many are acting like they have to win every time.

[MH1]

44. I think Obama needs to invoke the 14th amendment.

unless the republicans cave at the last minute and pass a clean debt ceiling raise. which is what I half expect.

I do expect that one of those two things will happen, rather than a default.

[Cool Logic]

45. Obama cannot invoke unilateral power to borrow, for he never had it in the first place.

And the 14th prohibits defaulting.

[Chan790]

54. Really?

That's news to me...all of it. You're no Constitutional scholar though. You display an overzealous citation of a very-basic understanding of 9th grade Civics and little comprehension beyond that.

[Cool Logic]

58. That's news to you, eh? If that is true, it stands to reason, that you have

never studied the Constitution; which explains your ignorance, as it relates to the subject matter.

The power to borrow is delegated to the Congress in Article 1; accordingly, the Congress must publish, ratify and have signed into law, legislation that authorizes the borrowing. To be clear, enacting legislation that authorizes spending does not entail the authorization to borrow. The are separate and apart, requiring separate legislation, separate votes, separate signings.

I understand that it is possible for the SC to "construct" anything; after all, they did "construct" Plessy v. Ferguson. However, in order to do so, the were forced delegate to themselves some sort of undefined mystical powers, that allowed them to traverse beyond the boundaries of reason and into the realm of the supernatural.

[Chan790]

63. Well...

Have I ever studied the Constitution?

Yes.

I have a baccalaureate degree in Political Theory (from a top-10 program in Poli. Sci.) which required me to take 6 credits of Constitutional Law (oddly enough these courses were called Constitutional Law I and Constitutional Law II) as well as spending the first 3 weeks of American Political Thought I going over every clause and word of the US Constitution.

Since we're credentials-trading...

[Fire1]

46. Fuck that!! No default!! n/t

[AverageJoe90]

53. What I'm worried about most is CHINA.

Could Beijing eventually just go all-out psycho and decide to take the U.S. with them, and any other country who might stand in their way(even Russia!)?

[Poll_Blind]

56. I disagree. A default would cause consequences unpredictable in the extreme.

Right now, we're in a race to the bottom with the Euro and we really want them to win that one.

We really do.

PB

[Ohio Joe]

59. Still an amazingly stupid idea

Default so we can blame the repugs? Shockingly stupid.

[MadHound]

64. No, please read what I said

Default, yes, so we don't have to take one of the crippling deals that is floating around. However instead of actually defaulting, use the 14th Amendment solution instead, so we don't actually default. Get it?

[Ohio Joe]

69. I read what you said and it is an amazingly stupid idea

You want the US to default so we can politically blame the repugs, then have President Obama whip some magic out of his ass that somehow makes time go back-wards because he invokes the 14th amendment so that we did not default and that when it inevitably hits the right wing SC, they will suddenly stop playing politics and voting on behalf of their corporate masters and decide to side with President Obama.

Yeah... Shockingly stupid.

[dmosh42]

62. Billionaires won't allow default...They lose big time in that event...

They're looking to get most from squeezing lower classes to accept more debt without them(billionaires) paying anymore in taxes. Their whole game plan is based on they own the media, and the people are basically morons.