Republicans voted today to filibuster a bill that would raise the debt ceiling and avert a government shutdown. Let's see how the nation's press described things. First up is the New York Times:
The Washington Post:
The LA Times:
The Wall Street Journal:
And finally, Fox News:
One of these is not like the others. And it's the one that millions of conservative voters will see and hear about.
One of the headlines has a picture?
I don't know what point Kevin thinks he is making. Fox viewers will cheer Republican senators to the rafters for blocking government funding.
When they begin to starve and die, they won't be cheering anymore.....bhahahaha
I dunno -- government shutdowns are decidedly *not* popular, even with conservative voters. Republicans have *never* gained anything with these shennanigans, yet they do it every time (unless a Republican is president). Fox is clearly trying to deflect, not credit, McConnell with budget brinksmanship, hoping their viewers will blame Schumer and Biden. Or something.
That's better than I expected from the elite media.
But again, there is no debt limit. By passing bills that require debt to fund them, Congress has authorized that debt.
Fox News and Facebook would be the some of the first ones to go. Fox News can take its illegal immigrants who work for them and flee the country. I already see Carlson being tortured on a online platform. Fingers being cut off, eyes being gouged out, joints snapped. Acid poured on his genitals. One ear drum away from Kellerdom. Admitting his con. His gayness.
Con men and homo's like Carlson would be the first ones to go.
If you go to the Fox News website right now (10PM Eastern Time) here is the headline at the top of the web page:
“Brian Laundrie manhunt: Tipster sends Dog the Bounty Hunter to Florida campground 75 miles from family home“
On a more serious note, let's remember the Senate(which speaks for Biden imo) asked for 2.7 trillion. The stupid House came back with 3.5 trillion. This is the start of the issues. Stupid is as stupid does.
Another problem progtards have is Pelosi throwing up her hands and making a deal with Republicans supporting the infrastructure bill to pass it and then passing a debt ceiling/funding bill with it. This is the real Republican game. Indeed yes, the infrastructure bill is more popular than the "services spending" bill. Considering the key Senate elections are in the rust belt and NC, where the infrastructure bill's popularity far outweighs the services spending bill. Proggies have a problem. They are all going to get primaried next year. Democratic Govs will attempt to get rid of their seats.
So you're just going to forget that the debt limit was reached without the spending bills passed this year?
Please don't feed the troll.
Joe Biden is facing a dilemma: one law tells him to spend money and another law tells him he can't.
Imagine Mitch McConnell in the same situation. He would instantly do exactly what he wanted to do in the first place, and then invite anyone who didn't like it to kiss his ass.
That's what Biden should do too.
If it comes down to it, I think he will do exactly that.
The problem is, it will take time for the courts to confirm that Biden has that authority (I'm fairly sure they would confirm it, or at least decline to stop it; SCOTUS isn't going to take it on themselves to nuke the global financial system). During that time, the uncertainty alone could set off a crisis.
Maybe it would all turn out okay, but Biden doesn't want to gamble on that unless he has to.
The laws actually cover the situation - government must partially shut down. This happened before.
Biden should just do a "Homey don't play dat" and keep the government running as usual.
If you have contradictory laws, follow the course of action that does least harm. If the courts interfere, ask what remedy they propose...tell them to be specific. If they can't be bothered to give a remedy (shadow docket style), ignore them. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
The laws aren't contradictory, at least on the government shutdown. The executive can only spend money appropriated by Congress. Congress has not appropriated any money to fund the government past Thursday. They've passed a lot of bills expressing what they would like to spend money on if they were to appropriate it, but they have never passed anything saying that the spending has been approved.
The debt limit isn't really contradictory, either. The Constitution mandates that Congress must approve any debt issued by the federal government. This is in an entirely separate clause from those that give Congress the power to tax and the power to spend. While, yes, in a realistic sense, Congress knows it is going to require debt to allow the appropriations that it passes, this is not legally true. Congress doesn't know what the state of the Treasury is going to be at the time any particular appropriation would be paid. It has not explicitly authorized any debt connected to it.
Prior to 1917, Congress specifically approved each bond issue by the Treasury. After the debt ceiling was created in 1917, it was raised periodically until 1974 in a process similar to today, though less frequent. In 1974, the Gephardt Rule was put in place to do exactly what is logical: authorize the Treasury to issue such debt as was required to finance whatever appropriations were passed. But this rule was repealed by Congress in 1995. So, what people are saying is the law, that the debt is automatically authorized by the appropriations was explicitly disallowed by act of Congress. The link between appropriations and the debt ceiling was deliberately severed.
The debt ceiling fights are dumb, but they are not contradictory.
You are correct that the laws are not strictly contradictory, though I contend they are contradictory in spirit if the assumption that the US always honors its debts holds (more on this later).
Your historical analysis is interesting, but also shows how much the nation has moved on from when the debt ceiling law was enacted.
It is like a victorian house being electrified but leaving an exposed wire with the assumption that no sane person would touch it. Now, years later, the house has been rewired several more times, and, moreover, wired to other houses in the neighborhood. Yet the exposed wire remains, and a moronic family member seems intent on touching it.
Ideally the wire should be insulated, but failing that, a responsible homeowner should prevent anyone from playing with it.
And if you want a rationale to hang this "responsible" behavior on, the president can always cite the 4th clause of the 14th amendment about not questioning the debt of the U.S. Again, you might quibble that that applied to different circumstances, but this SCOTUS has delighted in taking other clauses out of their context and in using their "plain reading" to advance their agenda. And there are constitutional scholars who support this reading: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269
As I said previously, the constitution is not a suicide pact. The laws of the US may allow the country to shoot itself in the foot, but a responsible president should prevent that.
I'm glad actual news organizations are naming the GOP in the headlines. It's a baby step away from their usual kind of coverage.
How long, though, before they're blaming Biden for failing to win Republican votes?
GOP TANKS WORLD ECONOMY
President Biden Has a Lot of Explaining to Do
When Biden turns on House Democrats, that is when the fun begins. Your missing the forest through the trees.
Exactly what I popped down to the comments to say.
Did you miss this one, Kevin?
Ack
https://mobile.twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1442314891134709761
The national debt is about $28 trillion. I don't think most people, including myself, can even comprehend what a trillion is. Since interest rates are low, we pay "only" about $500 billion in interest each year. According to the linked article below the federal government spent 6.5 trillion in 2020. How much is enough?https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2020-federal-budget-summary-of-revenue-and-spending-4797868
It's just a symptom of capitalism's decline. Growth is not easily obtained anymore. The end of the industrial revolution's growth has had long term effects, one is surging government debt.
Sure, but that doesn't address trillions continually spent on nothing that actually benefits the nation.
Right-wing corruption has exploded the national debt. It wasn't necessary.
Ever since Republicans discovered that they could cut taxes *and* not pay for anything that people want, it's been all downhill.
That still doesn't work. Pay for it or don't
The underpinnings of capitalism are dead. The 1980's weak capital expansion which relied on debt as much as spending was a bad sign. While the 90's improved on that for awhile, by 2001-20, credit growth blew away capital spending. Debt based growth based around the reserve currency is all that's left. Nominal interest is lower because real growth is lower.
The national debt is not a problem at all. Unlike COVID, global warming, domestic terrorism, corruption, capitalism, and right-wing propaganda, it doesn't kill anyone, destroy the middle class and our environment, sabotage democracy and our economy, and push America into decline.
So back away from Fox "News".
Pingback: La semana fantástica del congreso » Politikon
Fox News:
"Democrats Seek to Explode National Debt So That Afghani COVID Terrorists Can Rape Your Daughters"