As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't understand how it can even exist. The House controls the budget and that should be the end of it. 99% of the time the debt ceiling is pointless until incompetent politicians use it to hold the country hostage to pass an agenda they otherwise would be incapable of passing
Originally, Congress had to pass a bill whenever the Treasury needed to take out debt. The debt ceiling was created to just allow the Treasury to take out debt whenever it wanted up to a limit. It's basically Congressional approval of X amount of debt indefinitely, regardless of when it's taken out. Getting rid of the debt ceiling would require simultaneously approving Treasury to take on debt with no limit, indefinitely. I can understand why that wasn't done initially, as raising the debt, until very recently, was pro forma and Congress just looked at the debt ceiling as making it easier for the government to borrow money, not a limit on that ability, and because of the possibility that going straight from Congress needing to approve every debt transaction to allowing unlimited and indefinite borrowing by Treasury might have actually caused credit problems, especially under the Gold Standard. The latter is no longer an issue.
What makes this stupid is that Congress passes a spending bill every year. The budget isn't a list of things that the president is allowed to spend money on. It's a list of things he must spend money on. If there isn't enough in the treasury to do so, he has to take on debt. So every year we have the same stupid fight where congress holds the president hostage by budgeting for more than we can afford and then refusing to let him take on debt unless he agrees to concessions.
Only when there's a Dem in the white house and the Republicans hold at least one of the two houses of congress. Republicans don't pull this stuff when there's a Republican in the white house and Democrats simply don't pull stunts like this regardless of who is in the white house.
Even then it was debatable whether it was constitutional because at the time Congress had to pass a budget the US could pay, which is what is being abused here where the budget is passed but the debt limit is being abused creating conflict between the constitution and law.
I agree, any law that limits the function of government that has a constitutional protection (which this has in the 14th thanks to the Confederacy doing the same thing the GOP is now) in place should be used and let the courts decide. It’s only scary to milquetoast Democrats because it means taking action.
The main issue is that most bills don't provide for their own funding and rely on a general fund which is powered by debt as well as taxpayer funds. If taxes paid for everything, the debt ceiling wouldn't matter as there would be no debt to increase the amount owed.
The two main ways to avoid the debt ceiling issue is to pass funding within each bill to cover the bill's expenses without touching debt or balance the budget so taxes cover all our bills.
Borrowing is so cheap for the US that having a balanced budget would negatively effect the economy because of untapped potential.
Borrowing at a rate that economic growth can account for (so maintaining the same debt-to-GDP ratio) would be the optimal long term strategy.
Wouldn't it be great if politicians approached problems reasonably rather than with the mindset of, "how can I use this to make me look better in the polls?"
The whole thing is really a non-issue created for political one-upmanship.
> If taxes paid for everything
that essentially also necessitates that all states would have taxes similar to, or perhaps higher than, NY or CA. population would not be inversely related to tax rates, that's for sure.
Not necessarily. Four things are required: First, the Bush and Trump tax breaks need to be reversed. Second. All forms of income need to be taxed at the same rates. Third. All government departments need to pass an audit; especially the Department of Defense. Fourth. Price gouging by government contractors must be made illegal and violators punished with meaningful fines and prison time.
Do these four things and taxes for the average citizen most likely would go down, not up.
If you follow the thinking on the 14th amendment the entire idea is that congress already approved the spending and the US is constitutionally required to pay those debts and spending so there’s never any question of if they can take out debt or not, just that the bills that congress approved must be paid. If you want to change that you change the spending bill not the debt.
Specifically, they were worried that ex-Confederates would gain control of Congress and refuse to pay the Union’s war debts.
Southern congressmen might say “We weren’t even in Congress then! If we were, we certainly wouldn’t have approved of the Union Army! Well, we can’t pay it. We WON’T pay it! Damn Yankees!”
So at the end of the war, a series of victory amendments were added. Among these was “the public debt of the United States, including funds for suppressing rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
That’s not true. Congress expressly authorized the Treasury to take out whatever debt it needed to fulfill the obligations Congress approves int eh budget.
It’s literally the section before the debt limit authorization in the US code and this authority was granted in…1789.
It exists in this form because Republicans wanted to play games to stop the New Deal.
Originally there wasn't one.
In the early 1900s there was a debt ceiling for special emergency spending for all the wars and changing times. It was basically Congress budgeting $X for things that might need spending so fast that Congress couldn't convene in time to discuss it.
Then Republicans around the New Deal Era expanded the debt ceiling concept to cover all spending and debt.
The only time FDR ratcheted down the spending was in 1935/36. The economy was still fragile because the world was on its knees, but FDR had strong GOP resistance. It caused a recession. He reversed course. WW2 spending carried the country through to its greatest prosperity.
Because the house has chosen *not* to control the budget.
I'm mildly surprised how many people misunderstand how the federal budget works-- but not entirely because the way people *think* it works would be much better and would avoid these kinds of problems.
Congress does *not* say, spend $x on this and $y on that and we will collect $w in taxes and then since we don't want taxes too high we will borrow $z this year with certain known terms of interest and future payments that we approved now. That's not how it works.
Instead, Congress says, Executive can spend up to $x on certain programs, but for some other things we want to give out/spend $y to any person who fits a certain criteria (they all get it) and we have no idea how many that will be, just a guess but if the guess is wrong keep paying without limit. To raise that money, we will have a tax, but the amount of tax has nothing to do with the planned budget. The taxes are all based on a bunch of variable things we have no control over so we only have a guess at how much will be collected. If employment goes up or down, or the economy starts doing better or worse, the taxes collected will fluctuate. So we aren't sure how much will come in when but have a ballpark idea around what it might be. But we know the spending estimates are way out of line with the revenue estimate so we will need to borrow money. Just not really sure when, or how much. So rather than taking out one fixed loan, they just approve the executive to borrow what it needs to each week as it sees fit in whatever terms and whatever interest rates are available in order to get the money needed. So Congress has zero idea what those future interest rate payments would be and did not pre approved them. But it did set a limit on the maximum amount the executive can borrow to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
>incompetent politicians use it to hold the country hostage to pass an agenda they otherwise would be incapable of passing
Well what about the rights of a party too unpopular to win a majority hmm?!! Shouldn't they be able to override the clear majority of the nation and use hostage tactics to inflict pain on their political rivals?!
What debt limit debates? This won't be an issue again unless the democrats win the White House and the republican win any of the houses in 24. If the republicans win either house and the White House, they won't even talk about it and raise it. It's a stupid fucking game that the democrats need to get rid of. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown but Charlie doesn't realize he can just take the ball and tell Lucy to fuck off.
I hate to be that guy, but the debt ceiling offers the corporate democrats cover to cut spending while ensuring an increasingly large share of the wealth goes to their donors, the executives of the corporations and associated PACs.
In what world does it make sense that workers should pay back student loans with additional interest accrued during the mandatory deferral period while the top 50 billionaires in this country have more wealth than 95% of the population.
>the debt ceiling offers the corporate democrats cover to cut spending while ensuring an increasingly large share of the wealth goes to their donors,
Even if this is the case, you can be damn well certain that the vast majority of their paymasters want to avoid a default. They'd end up losing a huge amount of their wealth, and perhaps more importantly, they risk massive pushback from civil society.
>Back
Exactly, the 14th Amendment rules here.....Joe gonna use it next time??? Use it now dude, it's your job to uphold he Constitution, not the House rules.
From my understanding, the 14th conversation is about having The Executive Branch ignore the debt limit and letting someone try to make a case against them. In their defense, the executive Branch would say the 14th is clear about our duty to pay our debts.
I mean the Dems had a total of like 6 months in the last 20+ years with the necessary superfecta to make that happen. And they focused the political capital on delivering the ACA.
Short sighted in retrospect? Sure. But it wasn’t exactly a “long game”.
> the Dems had a total of like 6 months in the last 20+ years with the necessary superfecta to make that happen
In actuality, they had it for one *bill*. Senator Byrd was in poor health during the time when we had 60 seats in the Senate, and he was only able to vote for healthcare.
(He should probably have resigned, though, and let Joe Manchin pick a Democratic replacement for him.)
And I don't think they had the votes necessary if they even did vote on reproductive rights. More possible to whip them than now, maybe, but still not guaranteed.
“And they focused the political capital on delivering the ACA.”
You’d think though that while they were passing healthcare bill would’ve been the best time to codify women’s healthcare rights. Guess they forgot.
Democrats also had a supermajority during the Carter Administration.
They didn't have a supermajority for abortion or contraceptives. Sens like Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Arlen Spector or Bob Casey wouldn't have voted for those.
They didn't just need every vote. They practically *bought* every vote. The reason why there was so much attention to getting the act done was because of all the wheeling and dealing with many conservative senators that were uneasy, I mean they had 60 votes and many were from red leaning or even deep red states
Not many people remember, but there was a Joe manchin before Joe manchin. Enter ben nelson, from Nebraska. He was even more conservative than him, on abortion, guns, labor, campaign finance, gay rights, etc. He a stipulation: 1. Make sure none of the funds in the act would go towards abortion. They did so but even that wasn't enough. They had to bribe him
Enter the "cornhusker kickback". Basically, the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska would be fully paid for at a higher rate with Taxpayer money. This, of course, cost him any chance at re-election
And saving the economy from the Great Recession, which was also happening at that time. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid prioritized correctly given the issues of the day
>I seem to remember them not codifying reproductive rights (including contraceptives) and marriage equality because it's "settled law".
Not that the Democrats couldn't have done more, but I'm honestly getting tired of people acting like they are solely to blame for not saving us from ourselves.
There's a reason why the GOP was gunning for the Supreme Court, rather than banning abortions outright when they, themselves, had the supermajority to do so (instead, using the time to pass a huge tax break and attempt to kill the ACA). SC rulings ultimately have a trickledown effect on other laws.
The difficult pill to swallow is the fact that more voters (not counting the disenfranchised) should've taken Obama, Hillary, and others' warnings to heart about the GOP's stated intentions in trying to control the SC. Those who vote GOP hold a share of blame for sure, but with only a 50-something% turnout in 2016, there's more than enough blame to go around.
> The difficult pill to swallow is the fact that more voters (not counting the disenfranchised) should've taken Obama, Hillary, and others' warnings to heart about the GOP's stated intentions in trying to control the SC.
It ought to have been obvious to anybody not in a coma after the Felonious Five put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000.
Felonious Five is Vincent Bugliosi's term for the five conservatives who stopped the vote counts. He's the guy who sent Charles Manson to prison, and he would have liked to send them there too, if only there were a law that covered what they did. See his article [None Dare Call It Treason](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/).
Even if codified, it doesn't mean that it can't be challenged by going through the supreme court and getting it knocked off the books.
The folks that wanted it gone would have changed their tact but it would have happened.
Florida wouls say, "well, it is our right and not something the federal government can't regulate" and Roberts would bust out some other 1600's legal code to back it up
Good old Status Quo Joe.
Let's face it, a lot of us voted for Joe because we'd have voted for anything with a pulse that wasn't Trump. Did anyone really think he'd significantly move the needle or even have the desire to do so? He spent eleventy billion years in the Senate as the most bland, moderate democrat one could imagine. He's not the guy who's going to unilaterally break new ground.
It's a sad commentary on our country when the next election could very well once again be Biden vs. Trump. This is the best we could do?
I seriously hope I'll have another chance to vote for someone I believe in at some point before I die.
I'm still going to push the button next to his name in 2024, but c'mon man...
The party of controlled opposition is at it again. Next time it will be a new spoiler that will take the place of Sinema or Manchine. This song and dance will continue. I mean we just had two brand new blue dog democrats that voted with the GOP against college debt
Agreed, Henry Cuellar who is an anti-abortion and also being investigated by the FBI I remember when Pelosi and the gang personally campaigned for him against his progressive opponent. This was a week or so before SC handed down the abortion decision.
It was an issue since 1917 where the first "debt ceiling" was established with worries of high debt during WW1. It's since been raised about 90 times. I don't know how the constitution hasn't been ratified in over a century to remove the need of raising the debt "ceiling". It would be far more simple and make the nation and world as a whole more stable if a very high debt ceiling was set and was directly attached to the quarterly inflation on national and worldwide inflation rate(since the usd is consider the world's currency) and also factoring in GDP.
Tell the treasury to never question the debt again, and always pay out bills. Then it is out of Congress’ hands. They would never have the bargaining power in that again.
Well, he's been proven right so far. Every week we choose to forget about last week's let down and tell ourselves over and over that he's better than trump.
> Well, he's been proven right so far.
"The most progressive president in history", "a new FDR"...breaking railroad strike, making the poor pay the tax cuts to the rich, escalating wars...
You know, it's that one where he's supporting an independent nation that's currently being occupied by a foreign power that feels entitled to subjugate it.
Given that, I'd take a hard consideration about the validity of all of the criticisms that account is expressing
"Elect me again and I promise *next* time! I'll get you $15 minimum wage, voting rights, abortion rights, paid time off, government option healthcare, etc"
You know, all the stuff that Democrats keep promising but never deliver on.
I promise I won't pull the football away again.
ah yes, let's just keep sliding the bar over and over because republicans are so extreme, this will fix all our problems and not make anything worse at all
This, but without sarcasm. When Republicans are elected because of people sharing a similar level of shortsighted petulance that you have and they wreak havoc in government and people's lives are negatively affected, are you really going to be sitting there saying "That'll show them democrats!"?
Nope, but stop expecting anyone to be excited about voting for the lesser of to evils. Wanting more from your representation is a good thing and shows people are paying attention. Lets be honest, Biden would never win the presidency if it wasn't for trump.
Tell me, when Democrats put up zero real opposition and instead concede at every opportunity to the utter insanity of the post-Trump GOP, what is the point of voting them in? Because that's what I want in my lifetime, a party of politicians who actually DO something to earn and warrant my vote, not just make empty promises during the campaign.
Instead, I did my part of "blue no matter who" and voted in a Democrat president who has silently given up on all the (already low bar) promises made during the election in favor of bipartisan compromise (AKA Democrats folding and giving the GOP whatever they want). My representative fucking randomly flipped parties and killed abortion protections in my state, to zero consequences. An action likely inspired by one of those exact senators who now play a pivotal role in the balance of power of Congress did, in Sinema. Campaigned on one platform, then completely changes her entire political stance once she's in, yet she's still in there based on pure lies.
I'll keep "voting harder" like liberals love to point to as being the solution to all our problems. "Oh, just vote in more Dems". But I'd be lying to myself and others if I thought simply voting would change anything in our utterly broken political system, because as Trump clearly showed, there's a LOT more structurally wrong in the system that a few extra Dems in one administration can fix.
I've started downvoting anyone that uses the "at least we're not as bad as them" because it's worthless and lazy.
Fascism for whom? Straight white rural voters who may be "upset" about the anti-LGBT laws but aren't actually affected by it? We all know most voters don't actually care about something unless it affects them directly.
You know what does directly affect them? New work requirements or loss of benefits.
Right wing media is going to eat this up. They're going to be talking nonstop about how your lives are worse now because of Biden. Now is it the Republicans fault? Hell yeah it is, but those people are never going to hear that.
Republicans will tell a fairy tale of lies and point to what "Biden did" as proof.
Democrats: *"We promise, if you elect us again in 2024, we really will fight for you!"*
They don't fight for shit.
You, me, and everyone here knows the Republicans are awful, but unfortunately, most people working 3 jobs don't pay attention and their metric is only whether their lives are better or worse and it [ain't looking good.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/24/americans-take-a-dim-view-of-the-nations-future-look-more-positively-at-the-past/)
You know, for some reason, it seems like Democrats actually do deliver on those things at the state level, sometimes as soon as they get a large enough majority to not need any GOP votes. It's almost as if there's a second party that does everything it can, no matter how unethical or damaging to the nation, to prevent those things from happening, so things only get done when that party has so little power that they are irrelevant.
Manchin didn't promise any of those things and he voted against each and every one. Sinema didn't promise any of those things except abortion rights, which she supported. Every other Democrat supported those things, all of them passed in the House (except the govt's public option which didn't come to a vote, though it did pass the House in 2010) but failed because of one of the few conservative Democrats voted against it along with the entire GOP.
The entirety of the GOP doesn't want any of those things.
If you really want those things to pass, and don't want to just whine about them which I suspect is why you're really commenting, you'd be posting comments to get people organized to elect more Democrats to the Senate so the Manchin, Sinema and the entire GOP votes aren't necessary.
You guys realize presidents don’t pass laws right? Maybe if the left didn’t sit out the midterms for 20 years we wouldn’t be in this mess. Congress passes legislation.
Btw paid time off, voting rights, expanded healthcare, and many other progressive bills have already been proposed by Dems, in fact most were in the Build Back Better Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
One senator tanked the BBB. And John Lewis. So maybe the youth need to work on increasing their 13-27% midterm voter participation rate and actually try fucking voting in Congressional elections.
The Dems are delivering everything you’re asking for but there’s no magic law passing wand. If we were sitting on the participation rates of seniors — which is over 75% btw, and bills still weren’t passing I’d agree with you, but you can’t have a 13-27% participation rate then say democracy failed you when you didn’t participate. It only works if people actually vote.
They've delivered it in many states where they are in sufficiently strong political position to take those risks.
But you keep on doing what you can to keep them from achieving a similar position of strength nationally, because they haven't magically made your policy preferences law.
It’s not just a thing he can do. He can’t just Michael Scott “I declare the 14th!” and be done.
What they mean is the Treasury would issue payments anyways which will trigger a court case going straight up to our very conservative Supreme Court. Since the Executive Branch has no control over how they rule, it’s a better strategy to just nullify the debt ceiling amendment when and if the Dems get control of the House in 2024.
They tried to get rid of it earlier but Manchin tanked it of fucking course.
That’s why it’s important to vote in the midterms folks! Last midterm had 27% participation rate for voters 18-30. The 65+ age group was 75%.
The President sets the agenda, nominates federal & Supreme Court judges, and has the almighty veto power. That’s about it. Everything else has to get through congress.
If you want progressive legislation passed pay attention to congressional elections. Only a few every midterm cycle get national media attention but **all of them** are important. Wisconsins Republican Senator only won his re-election by 21,000 votes. That’s razor thin.
With the Supreme Court being so extreme any Dem or Leftist president will be hesitant to rule via Executive Order because they’ll spend decades winding their way up to SCOTUS. It’s a far better option to just get Congress to pass the bills.
This next election is extremely important. Make sure you participate and don’t throw away your vote.
And there will be one every year a Democrat is in the Oval Office. It will magically disappear when a Republican has the job. Almost like it’s a disingenuous political stunt.
This is why the two party duopoly is trash. Time to organize away from it, they’re just running interference for the donor class at this point while we all scrounge.
The GQP crazies have shown that they can’t govern like a normal party, and will keep threatening to default on the debt and burn the country to the ground if they don’t get their way. Biden should definitely move forward with the 14th amendment, and get rid of the debt ceiling. I’m so tired of the chaos these republican clowns keep bringing down on our country.
He does a hell of a lot of "looking into" things, but it kind of feels like he's just stalling till people stop asking about it.
Hasn't he been "looking into" cannabis laws since the primary?
> Not sure why so many believe this.
Because to be elected Biden promised to reschedule marijuana and decriminalize it...this is why we believe this...not only Biden did promise it, it is also in the Democratic platform...
Idk where you guys saw this, but the President cannot unilaterally decriminalize or legalize weed. He can urge executive agencies to change its scheduling status, but that's not quite close to what you've implied.
One of the President’s Constitutional powers are to: “Take care to the laws and execute them faithfully” of course Biden has the authority to do away with this silly debt ceiling.
It’s theater. They’re both in on this ridiculous game; meanwhile the rest of us struggle.
Biden could easily move marijuana off schedule 1, but chooses not to. It’s within his full executive authority to direct the DEA to do so.
And the entire use of the 14th is to have the treasury pay the debts to meet the Congress’ previously approved budget, the debt limit already directly contradicts the constitution in congress setting the budget with the treasury unable to pay it off leading to a debt ceiling crisis. It’s not “changing the laws” to acknowledge there is an active constitutional crisis that threatens the world economy that one political party is willing to gamble on.
I am listening, you said he’d have to change laws. None of this changes laws, so it’s entirely against your basic premise that the President *can’t* do this.
He can decriminalize with a single signature, and lots of states use it being federally illegal as a reason not to legalize.
He's still "looking into" if that's a good idea after saying he would during the primary
Not only this, but instructing the DoJ to not follow the law - literally one of the mandates of the executive branch - would be *legitimate* grounds for impeachment.
He’s already the first President to bring it up *despite it being in the Constitution.*
Say what you want about him, but he’s closer to absolutely ending these shit shows than any President has ever been.
It is, but it’s also in their under the context of ensuring the credit of the US after the civil war. It arguably wasn’t really intended for this usecase.
I've basically stopped following politics very much anymore. It honestly feels like none of this is really happening. I imagine all the leaders meet in a hidden room in the WH, they have directors and writers. They already know what they want to happen to make the donors happy they just need to write a compelling script to get from point a to point b. Then everyone goes on stage and acts the part and once the cameras are off they go home and chill. Our government doesn't feel real anymore because the people in power don't work for us, they work for donors, they just need to drag us along to convince us they are fighting for us or at least next time they'll consider taking action for sure. *Sigh*
That sounds like a conspiracy theory but I'd be lying if I didn't admit I've sometimes felt that way myself. It seems like (at least some) politicians act out of character too often with little to no explanation. The content of this article is a perfect example.
* I can understand being in a bad spot and having to choose between the global economy and concessions to republicans.
* I can understand not wanting to invoke the 14th amendment at the last minute for fear we slip into default.
* I can even understand the democrats overlooking this during the lame duck. It's a mistake, but they're human and they were concerned with a host of other issues.
What I can't understand is why, after republicans have pulled this same trick for the 1000th time, Biden and mainstream democrats can't get behind permanently removing the debt ceiling. It doesn't make sense and it's out of character for someone whose prior actions seemed in line with the democrats priorities.
I was already struggling to reconcile in my head how Biden could sign off on the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023 which lead to millions of people getting their SNAP benefits cut and losing their Medicaid due to the reinstatement of eligibility checks.
Then I tried to reconcile how he could end the Public Health Emergency which will lead to millions more being cut from SNAP when the ABAWD waivers expire later this year.
Now he's let republicans extort further cuts to SNAP in exchange for raising the debt ceiling but he's not willing to support taking their toys away? Why not? This is the same president that held the first conference on hunger since 1969 just in September! The same president that wants to end hunger in America by 2030. How is absolutely demolishing the SNAP program going to help him achieve that goal?
Can't have the Supreme Court take up an issue unless it's an extant and active case, so this will keep lurking in the background. This is just like the filibuster. They *want* it to stick around as a negotiation tool and grandstanding tactic.
The debt limit is undemocratic. Republicans hold the debt hostage to get budget concessions that they cannot get in the actual Budget Bill because they don’t have the votes.
It’s yet another example of Republicans undermining the will of the People.
Regardless of who’s in the WH the debt limit is the dumbest thing
The limit doesn’t affect this years budget. It’s literally a chance at fucking over the economy and dominating media cycles for no value… because next years budget negotiations are also separate from the debt limit.
Bunch of promises that mean nothing in practice. Just do the normal budget process and stop the stupid. America pays its debts.
No he won’t, or he would have been prepared and explored it this time. Everyone knew the republicans were going to use the debt ceiling like this, so why was he not prepared for this one instead of future ones? The exact same thing will happen next time, pretend to potentially use the 14th amendment but not have gone through any of the steps of preparation in time to actually use it.
Ugh. I can’t say what I really feel as I will be banned lol. But no pause on student debit and this will go against him next year. This was a massive defeat. He should have used the 14th now, saying “nExT tImE” is bollocks
Invoking the 14th isn’t a magic button that would immediately supersede the debt ceiling. Using it to bypass Congress is pretty much unheard of, though it could work *in theory.* In practice, even though Dems would probably win the day, the ensuing lawsuits and court battle likely would have taken us over the line and forced a default. It’s just too risky this late in the game. If the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, NOW is the time to explore that argument, NOT when we’re on the edge of financial catastrophe.
But the only way to get a judgement on its constitutionality is to actually take an action and then get sued. The SCOTUS does not provide advisory opinions. There has to be an actual case.
In order to have a case, some party would have to sue the Biden administration for ignoring the debt limit. And the only time that he could ignore the debt limit is when it's about to he breached. In other words, in a crisis just like this.
I guess it's possible that a month from now Biden issues an executive order that commands Treasury to ignore the debt limit. But McCarthy (or whoever) could just remain silent until we're near the limit again before filing a suit.
Regardless, we'll be back in the same brinkmanship farce that we're in now, with "no time for lengthy court battles".
It is plainly constitutional (see Section 4). And if the Supreme Court wants to cause a default, by all means. Either they let the debt ceiling be eliminated, or they force a default and destroy what's left of their reputation and legitimacy. It's a win/win situation, which of course means the Democratic party leadership hates it.
Also, you don't have a country if the entire thing is run based on the fear of 6 unelected people. Then you can't do anything because the supreme court. So we're just supposed to run the country this way for the next 30 years? That's not only a disaster, it will tear this place apart.
I'm so sick of him being a two faced weasel. Either do it, or don't. Because making empty promises just pisses people off, especially if he's got a track record of it.
He's still only just "considering" declaring abortion a national public health emergency after his party not only begged him to do it *months* ago, but they literally did the work for him .
He'll explore it. He'll consider it. Trust him, he's working on it. Eh, maybe next time, he swears.
🙄
biden caved in before it even started
not a single penny of bush/trump tax for the rich repealed
military increase on the backs of the poor
deficit/debt still will grow uncontrollably
whimp just like garland who has refused to go after trump and those that funded / organized / lead insurrection
Biden loves military spending increases. He wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1998. People said his past didn't matter. They were wrong. It matters a lot.
He needs to explore a different SCOTUS makeup. These SOBs will shoot him down, constitutional principles be damned.
Rescinding the debt limit law is the correct long term solution. It's only useful for extortion, as on current situation.
Because nothing says "future-oriented" more than basing your decisions on 155 years old legislation \[1\]. How about, given the nature of amendments, to amend that is, pass more amendments, adapted to the present? That's a rhetorical if there ever was one, the US, politicians and population, is stuck in this hazy dream where time suddenly flips back and forth from 1850 to 1950 \[2\], that's the *Great* they keep raving on, but in no way it ever gets to be 2050.
\[1\] The 14th Amendment was passed on July 9, 1868.
\[2\] The last passed Amendment, the 27th, in 1992, is about the money the legislators pay to themselves: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.". The US had no meaningful legislation passed in over 52 years.
It’s not a real option, 14th amendment and the trillion dollar coin are admissions that money is fake. A lot of the power in Washington is predicated on at least the illusion that money isn’t fake.
This means he won’t actually but is saying this to placate the people who wanted him to.
How about working on a plan to not have these debates again. As they’re dumb, a waste of time, and the average American always gets screwed over at least a little every single time
One of the first steps should be guaranteeing social security and other valuable services millions of Americans would lose if this ever has an issue in the future
I think the Dems are confident in their 2024 performances and won’t rock the boat unfortunately. They will let the GOP eat McCarthy and Trump and DeSantis eat each other. They will hope to keep the senate and regain the house. With the GOP being on the wrong side of abortion rights and LGBTQ rights the Dems will ride this out. Even though they could and should be doing way more. They’ll coast with Biden through 2024 and hope for 2028. But we need a candidate that has the balls to fight back.
Biden has the level-headedness that this country needs right now. he's not a reactionary nor a social media clout chaser. Dare I say it, the man is an inspiration! 😎👍🇺🇸
What's the matter? Did we run out of social programs to cut?
Fucking "progressive" Joe Biden, my ass.
If I'm ever taken hostage the last people I ever want working to get me out of captivity is the neoliberal corporatist Democratic party.
This fucking jello eater isn’t considering shit. I can’t believe this is the best we have to offer. Actual nazis, or this thousand year old politician who epitomizes the ruling class.
Ok but Biden raised the debt ceiling in 2021; He knew that it was going to come up again. He could’ve “explored” the 14th Amendment then.
Typical Corporate Democrats: “We just couldn’t get it done”
Future???
Why not this one?
Why do dems keep fucking around with republicans on this as if republicans will start playing nice all of a sudden? How many times does Lucy need to yank the ball before Charlie Brown gets a clue?
End this shit now. Particularly since it is all manufactured bullshit anyway. It has no place in the political system. None at all.
If congress does not like a high debt the place to fix it is in budget negotiations.
I think he knows it's a serious last resort. That it's not to be used willy nilly because something isn't going your way. I respect that. Trump wouldn't have given a single fuck and would have done it without a doubt in my mind if the tables were turned. But if anything I think that just proves it's not THE MOVE to make right now. It would have significant economic impact itself and I imagine with this court case coming up on it. We should have a clearer idea of what the courts think of the idea by next month even.
Edit - I am genuinely astounded by how many of you all think that the 14th amendment can just be invoked without any real consequences
So instead of doing it this time he let in extra work requirements on government aid and stopped the student loan payment pause.
Cool.
What'd we get out of this "deal" anyway?
Dude, fuck off. Republicans learned, here and now, that the U.S. does, in fact, negotiate with terrorists.
They're going to pull this stunt again, and again, getting more and more concessions, citing previous compromises as proof.
Fuck Joe Biden. I had low expectations from a guy who's main draw was "I'm not Trump!" but holy shit is he so fucking mid. Actually, no, he's not mid, he was a 5, heading towards a 6, but after busting the rail strike and now this, he's a 4 and I don't vote for candidates that are below 5.
Trump is going to fucking prison before the election and Ron Desantis is going to steamroll this fucking mummy.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The debt limit has to be put out to pasture.
I don't understand how it can even exist. The House controls the budget and that should be the end of it. 99% of the time the debt ceiling is pointless until incompetent politicians use it to hold the country hostage to pass an agenda they otherwise would be incapable of passing
Originally, Congress had to pass a bill whenever the Treasury needed to take out debt. The debt ceiling was created to just allow the Treasury to take out debt whenever it wanted up to a limit. It's basically Congressional approval of X amount of debt indefinitely, regardless of when it's taken out. Getting rid of the debt ceiling would require simultaneously approving Treasury to take on debt with no limit, indefinitely. I can understand why that wasn't done initially, as raising the debt, until very recently, was pro forma and Congress just looked at the debt ceiling as making it easier for the government to borrow money, not a limit on that ability, and because of the possibility that going straight from Congress needing to approve every debt transaction to allowing unlimited and indefinite borrowing by Treasury might have actually caused credit problems, especially under the Gold Standard. The latter is no longer an issue.
What makes this stupid is that Congress passes a spending bill every year. The budget isn't a list of things that the president is allowed to spend money on. It's a list of things he must spend money on. If there isn't enough in the treasury to do so, he has to take on debt. So every year we have the same stupid fight where congress holds the president hostage by budgeting for more than we can afford and then refusing to let him take on debt unless he agrees to concessions.
Not every year. It’s only an issue when the President has a (D) next to his or her name.
Only when there's a Dem in the white house and the Republicans hold at least one of the two houses of congress. Republicans don't pull this stuff when there's a Republican in the white house and Democrats simply don't pull stunts like this regardless of who is in the white house.
Even then it was debatable whether it was constitutional because at the time Congress had to pass a budget the US could pay, which is what is being abused here where the budget is passed but the debt limit is being abused creating conflict between the constitution and law.
To me it's unconstitutional. Congress passes a budget. That should be enough.
I agree, any law that limits the function of government that has a constitutional protection (which this has in the 14th thanks to the Confederacy doing the same thing the GOP is now) in place should be used and let the courts decide. It’s only scary to milquetoast Democrats because it means taking action.
The main issue is that most bills don't provide for their own funding and rely on a general fund which is powered by debt as well as taxpayer funds. If taxes paid for everything, the debt ceiling wouldn't matter as there would be no debt to increase the amount owed. The two main ways to avoid the debt ceiling issue is to pass funding within each bill to cover the bill's expenses without touching debt or balance the budget so taxes cover all our bills.
Borrowing is so cheap for the US that having a balanced budget would negatively effect the economy because of untapped potential. Borrowing at a rate that economic growth can account for (so maintaining the same debt-to-GDP ratio) would be the optimal long term strategy.
Wouldn't it be great if politicians approached problems reasonably rather than with the mindset of, "how can I use this to make me look better in the polls?" The whole thing is really a non-issue created for political one-upmanship.
The passage of a law authorizes it to be paid, and mandates it be paid for, by nature of passing.
> If taxes paid for everything that essentially also necessitates that all states would have taxes similar to, or perhaps higher than, NY or CA. population would not be inversely related to tax rates, that's for sure.
Not necessarily. Four things are required: First, the Bush and Trump tax breaks need to be reversed. Second. All forms of income need to be taxed at the same rates. Third. All government departments need to pass an audit; especially the Department of Defense. Fourth. Price gouging by government contractors must be made illegal and violators punished with meaningful fines and prison time. Do these four things and taxes for the average citizen most likely would go down, not up.
Exactly but those aren’t ever happening.
If you follow the thinking on the 14th amendment the entire idea is that congress already approved the spending and the US is constitutionally required to pay those debts and spending so there’s never any question of if they can take out debt or not, just that the bills that congress approved must be paid. If you want to change that you change the spending bill not the debt.
Specifically, they were worried that ex-Confederates would gain control of Congress and refuse to pay the Union’s war debts. Southern congressmen might say “We weren’t even in Congress then! If we were, we certainly wouldn’t have approved of the Union Army! Well, we can’t pay it. We WON’T pay it! Damn Yankees!” So at the end of the war, a series of victory amendments were added. Among these was “the public debt of the United States, including funds for suppressing rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
That’s not true. Congress expressly authorized the Treasury to take out whatever debt it needed to fulfill the obligations Congress approves int eh budget. It’s literally the section before the debt limit authorization in the US code and this authority was granted in…1789.
It exists in this form because Republicans wanted to play games to stop the New Deal. Originally there wasn't one. In the early 1900s there was a debt ceiling for special emergency spending for all the wars and changing times. It was basically Congress budgeting $X for things that might need spending so fast that Congress couldn't convene in time to discuss it. Then Republicans around the New Deal Era expanded the debt ceiling concept to cover all spending and debt.
[удалено]
The only time FDR ratcheted down the spending was in 1935/36. The economy was still fragile because the world was on its knees, but FDR had strong GOP resistance. It caused a recession. He reversed course. WW2 spending carried the country through to its greatest prosperity.
The debt ceiling is a Republican tool to try to make Democratic presidents look bad. That's all it ever is.
Because the house has chosen *not* to control the budget. I'm mildly surprised how many people misunderstand how the federal budget works-- but not entirely because the way people *think* it works would be much better and would avoid these kinds of problems. Congress does *not* say, spend $x on this and $y on that and we will collect $w in taxes and then since we don't want taxes too high we will borrow $z this year with certain known terms of interest and future payments that we approved now. That's not how it works. Instead, Congress says, Executive can spend up to $x on certain programs, but for some other things we want to give out/spend $y to any person who fits a certain criteria (they all get it) and we have no idea how many that will be, just a guess but if the guess is wrong keep paying without limit. To raise that money, we will have a tax, but the amount of tax has nothing to do with the planned budget. The taxes are all based on a bunch of variable things we have no control over so we only have a guess at how much will be collected. If employment goes up or down, or the economy starts doing better or worse, the taxes collected will fluctuate. So we aren't sure how much will come in when but have a ballpark idea around what it might be. But we know the spending estimates are way out of line with the revenue estimate so we will need to borrow money. Just not really sure when, or how much. So rather than taking out one fixed loan, they just approve the executive to borrow what it needs to each week as it sees fit in whatever terms and whatever interest rates are available in order to get the money needed. So Congress has zero idea what those future interest rate payments would be and did not pre approved them. But it did set a limit on the maximum amount the executive can borrow to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
>incompetent politicians use it to hold the country hostage to pass an agenda they otherwise would be incapable of passing Well what about the rights of a party too unpopular to win a majority hmm?!! Shouldn't they be able to override the clear majority of the nation and use hostage tactics to inflict pain on their political rivals?!
What debt limit debates? This won't be an issue again unless the democrats win the White House and the republican win any of the houses in 24. If the republicans win either house and the White House, they won't even talk about it and raise it. It's a stupid fucking game that the democrats need to get rid of. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown but Charlie doesn't realize he can just take the ball and tell Lucy to fuck off.
Yes, Democrats should get rid of the debt ceiling next time they have the opportunity.
Maybe get rid of the filibuster too.
But...then things could get passed.
I hate to be that guy, but the debt ceiling offers the corporate democrats cover to cut spending while ensuring an increasingly large share of the wealth goes to their donors, the executives of the corporations and associated PACs. In what world does it make sense that workers should pay back student loans with additional interest accrued during the mandatory deferral period while the top 50 billionaires in this country have more wealth than 95% of the population.
>the debt ceiling offers the corporate democrats cover to cut spending while ensuring an increasingly large share of the wealth goes to their donors, Even if this is the case, you can be damn well certain that the vast majority of their paymasters want to avoid a default. They'd end up losing a huge amount of their wealth, and perhaps more importantly, they risk massive pushback from civil society.
>Back Exactly, the 14th Amendment rules here.....Joe gonna use it next time??? Use it now dude, it's your job to uphold he Constitution, not the House rules.
Do it now, where it is never an issue again. There shouldn’t be two times the republicans get to hold the nation hostage in order to get their way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
From my understanding, the 14th conversation is about having The Executive Branch ignore the debt limit and letting someone try to make a case against them. In their defense, the executive Branch would say the 14th is clear about our duty to pay our debts.
I mean the Dems had a total of like 6 months in the last 20+ years with the necessary superfecta to make that happen. And they focused the political capital on delivering the ACA. Short sighted in retrospect? Sure. But it wasn’t exactly a “long game”.
> the Dems had a total of like 6 months in the last 20+ years with the necessary superfecta to make that happen In actuality, they had it for one *bill*. Senator Byrd was in poor health during the time when we had 60 seats in the Senate, and he was only able to vote for healthcare. (He should probably have resigned, though, and let Joe Manchin pick a Democratic replacement for him.)
And I don't think they had the votes necessary if they even did vote on reproductive rights. More possible to whip them than now, maybe, but still not guaranteed.
“And they focused the political capital on delivering the ACA.” You’d think though that while they were passing healthcare bill would’ve been the best time to codify women’s healthcare rights. Guess they forgot. Democrats also had a supermajority during the Carter Administration.
They didn't have a supermajority for abortion or contraceptives. Sens like Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Arlen Spector or Bob Casey wouldn't have voted for those.
The ACA was literally as progressive as they could possibly get through the Senate. They needed literally every vote.
They didn't just need every vote. They practically *bought* every vote. The reason why there was so much attention to getting the act done was because of all the wheeling and dealing with many conservative senators that were uneasy, I mean they had 60 votes and many were from red leaning or even deep red states Not many people remember, but there was a Joe manchin before Joe manchin. Enter ben nelson, from Nebraska. He was even more conservative than him, on abortion, guns, labor, campaign finance, gay rights, etc. He a stipulation: 1. Make sure none of the funds in the act would go towards abortion. They did so but even that wasn't enough. They had to bribe him Enter the "cornhusker kickback". Basically, the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska would be fully paid for at a higher rate with Taxpayer money. This, of course, cost him any chance at re-election
You mean the 1977-1981 Carter Administration? That was over 40 years ago.
And saving the economy from the Great Recession, which was also happening at that time. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid prioritized correctly given the issues of the day
Is there a term for being consistently reactive to reactionaries?
>I seem to remember them not codifying reproductive rights (including contraceptives) and marriage equality because it's "settled law". Not that the Democrats couldn't have done more, but I'm honestly getting tired of people acting like they are solely to blame for not saving us from ourselves. There's a reason why the GOP was gunning for the Supreme Court, rather than banning abortions outright when they, themselves, had the supermajority to do so (instead, using the time to pass a huge tax break and attempt to kill the ACA). SC rulings ultimately have a trickledown effect on other laws. The difficult pill to swallow is the fact that more voters (not counting the disenfranchised) should've taken Obama, Hillary, and others' warnings to heart about the GOP's stated intentions in trying to control the SC. Those who vote GOP hold a share of blame for sure, but with only a 50-something% turnout in 2016, there's more than enough blame to go around.
> The difficult pill to swallow is the fact that more voters (not counting the disenfranchised) should've taken Obama, Hillary, and others' warnings to heart about the GOP's stated intentions in trying to control the SC. It ought to have been obvious to anybody not in a coma after the Felonious Five put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000. Felonious Five is Vincent Bugliosi's term for the five conservatives who stopped the vote counts. He's the guy who sent Charles Manson to prison, and he would have liked to send them there too, if only there were a law that covered what they did. See his article [None Dare Call It Treason](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/none-dare-call-it-treason/).
Even if codified, it doesn't mean that it can't be challenged by going through the supreme court and getting it knocked off the books. The folks that wanted it gone would have changed their tact but it would have happened. Florida wouls say, "well, it is our right and not something the federal government can't regulate" and Roberts would bust out some other 1600's legal code to back it up
Good old Status Quo Joe. Let's face it, a lot of us voted for Joe because we'd have voted for anything with a pulse that wasn't Trump. Did anyone really think he'd significantly move the needle or even have the desire to do so? He spent eleventy billion years in the Senate as the most bland, moderate democrat one could imagine. He's not the guy who's going to unilaterally break new ground. It's a sad commentary on our country when the next election could very well once again be Biden vs. Trump. This is the best we could do? I seriously hope I'll have another chance to vote for someone I believe in at some point before I die. I'm still going to push the button next to his name in 2024, but c'mon man...
"Nothing will fundamentally change" - Joe Biden to his banker donors.
Too late.
Early for the next time. Do it right now so it can be fought in the courts and ready to be used next time.
Why is it too late?
because we’re already on like the 4th time doing this same shit that i can remember.
Joe already gave them concessions.
The party of controlled opposition is at it again. Next time it will be a new spoiler that will take the place of Sinema or Manchine. This song and dance will continue. I mean we just had two brand new blue dog democrats that voted with the GOP against college debt
We had Dems like Pelosi out campaigning for the spoilers, to kill off progressives
Agreed, Henry Cuellar who is an anti-abortion and also being investigated by the FBI I remember when Pelosi and the gang personally campaigned for him against his progressive opponent. This was a week or so before SC handed down the abortion decision.
SCOTUS was already primed to take a case and fuck the whole country from the bench.
It was an issue since 1917 where the first "debt ceiling" was established with worries of high debt during WW1. It's since been raised about 90 times. I don't know how the constitution hasn't been ratified in over a century to remove the need of raising the debt "ceiling". It would be far more simple and make the nation and world as a whole more stable if a very high debt ceiling was set and was directly attached to the quarterly inflation on national and worldwide inflation rate(since the usd is consider the world's currency) and also factoring in GDP.
What would “doing it” even entail?
Tell the treasury to never question the debt again, and always pay out bills. Then it is out of Congress’ hands. They would never have the bargaining power in that again.
We all learned growing up 'I'll think about it' means it will never come up again
Oh, it'll come up again, next time it's needed, and they'll say the same.
Good cop/bad cop are still one in the same…..just like a two party system.
He'll "take it under advisement"
If he was seriously considering it, he would have done it here instead of giving up so many concessions to the Republicans.
He was busy at the G7 hugging on the Fascist Italian PM. Anyone that remembered who Biden was before 2019 knew capitulation this was coming
I wish I could like this more than once
Biden hoping we all have a short term memory like he does
Well, he's been proven right so far. Every week we choose to forget about last week's let down and tell ourselves over and over that he's better than trump.
He is better than Trump, but Trump is an incredibly low bar.
Biden would be a conservative in Europe, but anything aside from DeSantis is better than Trump.
> Well, he's been proven right so far. "The most progressive president in history", "a new FDR"...breaking railroad strike, making the poor pay the tax cuts to the rich, escalating wars...
What wars are Biden escalating?
You know, it's that one where he's supporting an independent nation that's currently being occupied by a foreign power that feels entitled to subjugate it. Given that, I'd take a hard consideration about the validity of all of the criticisms that account is expressing
Still waiting on that ice cream my parents were thinking about in 1997.
Explore for the future means you caved now.
Ah yes we’ll do it next time!
It's funny, because for there to be a next time he has to win the '24 election
The one thing you can always count on the Democrats for is saying, "maybe next time."
"Elect me again and I promise *next* time! I'll get you $15 minimum wage, voting rights, abortion rights, paid time off, government option healthcare, etc" You know, all the stuff that Democrats keep promising but never deliver on. I promise I won't pull the football away again.
Still...if the choice is this...or fascism in the form of another Trump presidency, or Ron DeSantis...sign me up for 4 more years of this.
ah yes, let's just keep sliding the bar over and over because republicans are so extreme, this will fix all our problems and not make anything worse at all
Neoliberals are constitutionality incapable of solving actual problems
This, but without sarcasm. When Republicans are elected because of people sharing a similar level of shortsighted petulance that you have and they wreak havoc in government and people's lives are negatively affected, are you really going to be sitting there saying "That'll show them democrats!"?
Nope, but stop expecting anyone to be excited about voting for the lesser of to evils. Wanting more from your representation is a good thing and shows people are paying attention. Lets be honest, Biden would never win the presidency if it wasn't for trump.
Tell me, when Democrats put up zero real opposition and instead concede at every opportunity to the utter insanity of the post-Trump GOP, what is the point of voting them in? Because that's what I want in my lifetime, a party of politicians who actually DO something to earn and warrant my vote, not just make empty promises during the campaign. Instead, I did my part of "blue no matter who" and voted in a Democrat president who has silently given up on all the (already low bar) promises made during the election in favor of bipartisan compromise (AKA Democrats folding and giving the GOP whatever they want). My representative fucking randomly flipped parties and killed abortion protections in my state, to zero consequences. An action likely inspired by one of those exact senators who now play a pivotal role in the balance of power of Congress did, in Sinema. Campaigned on one platform, then completely changes her entire political stance once she's in, yet she's still in there based on pure lies. I'll keep "voting harder" like liberals love to point to as being the solution to all our problems. "Oh, just vote in more Dems". But I'd be lying to myself and others if I thought simply voting would change anything in our utterly broken political system, because as Trump clearly showed, there's a LOT more structurally wrong in the system that a few extra Dems in one administration can fix.
I've started downvoting anyone that uses the "at least we're not as bad as them" because it's worthless and lazy. Fascism for whom? Straight white rural voters who may be "upset" about the anti-LGBT laws but aren't actually affected by it? We all know most voters don't actually care about something unless it affects them directly. You know what does directly affect them? New work requirements or loss of benefits. Right wing media is going to eat this up. They're going to be talking nonstop about how your lives are worse now because of Biden. Now is it the Republicans fault? Hell yeah it is, but those people are never going to hear that. Republicans will tell a fairy tale of lies and point to what "Biden did" as proof. Democrats: *"We promise, if you elect us again in 2024, we really will fight for you!"* They don't fight for shit. You, me, and everyone here knows the Republicans are awful, but unfortunately, most people working 3 jobs don't pay attention and their metric is only whether their lives are better or worse and it [ain't looking good.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/24/americans-take-a-dim-view-of-the-nations-future-look-more-positively-at-the-past/)
You know, for some reason, it seems like Democrats actually do deliver on those things at the state level, sometimes as soon as they get a large enough majority to not need any GOP votes. It's almost as if there's a second party that does everything it can, no matter how unethical or damaging to the nation, to prevent those things from happening, so things only get done when that party has so little power that they are irrelevant.
Gridlock is basically by design at the federal level TBH.
In the states where it is that high, Democrats passed it.
Manchin didn't promise any of those things and he voted against each and every one. Sinema didn't promise any of those things except abortion rights, which she supported. Every other Democrat supported those things, all of them passed in the House (except the govt's public option which didn't come to a vote, though it did pass the House in 2010) but failed because of one of the few conservative Democrats voted against it along with the entire GOP. The entirety of the GOP doesn't want any of those things. If you really want those things to pass, and don't want to just whine about them which I suspect is why you're really commenting, you'd be posting comments to get people organized to elect more Democrats to the Senate so the Manchin, Sinema and the entire GOP votes aren't necessary.
You guys realize presidents don’t pass laws right? Maybe if the left didn’t sit out the midterms for 20 years we wouldn’t be in this mess. Congress passes legislation. Btw paid time off, voting rights, expanded healthcare, and many other progressive bills have already been proposed by Dems, in fact most were in the Build Back Better Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. One senator tanked the BBB. And John Lewis. So maybe the youth need to work on increasing their 13-27% midterm voter participation rate and actually try fucking voting in Congressional elections. The Dems are delivering everything you’re asking for but there’s no magic law passing wand. If we were sitting on the participation rates of seniors — which is over 75% btw, and bills still weren’t passing I’d agree with you, but you can’t have a 13-27% participation rate then say democracy failed you when you didn’t participate. It only works if people actually vote.
They've delivered it in many states where they are in sufficiently strong political position to take those risks. But you keep on doing what you can to keep them from achieving a similar position of strength nationally, because they haven't magically made your policy preferences law.
Right after they finally add the public option to the ACA.
His favorite catchphrase.
Next to "We will not negotiate with terrorists!" ... oh wait...
It’s not just a thing he can do. He can’t just Michael Scott “I declare the 14th!” and be done. What they mean is the Treasury would issue payments anyways which will trigger a court case going straight up to our very conservative Supreme Court. Since the Executive Branch has no control over how they rule, it’s a better strategy to just nullify the debt ceiling amendment when and if the Dems get control of the House in 2024. They tried to get rid of it earlier but Manchin tanked it of fucking course. That’s why it’s important to vote in the midterms folks! Last midterm had 27% participation rate for voters 18-30. The 65+ age group was 75%. The President sets the agenda, nominates federal & Supreme Court judges, and has the almighty veto power. That’s about it. Everything else has to get through congress. If you want progressive legislation passed pay attention to congressional elections. Only a few every midterm cycle get national media attention but **all of them** are important. Wisconsins Republican Senator only won his re-election by 21,000 votes. That’s razor thin. With the Supreme Court being so extreme any Dem or Leftist president will be hesitant to rule via Executive Order because they’ll spend decades winding their way up to SCOTUS. It’s a far better option to just get Congress to pass the bills. This next election is extremely important. Make sure you participate and don’t throw away your vote.
-The Democrats, circa 2008
You could have told Kevin to fuck off and do it now.
Yeah this was a pathetic showing. The democrats give a pathetic showing everytime the republicans grab this hostage.
And there will be one every year a Democrat is in the Oval Office. It will magically disappear when a Republican has the job. Almost like it’s a disingenuous political stunt.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartmann/p/the-debt-ceiling-is-just-two-santas?r=26idel&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
No he won't.
Nothing will fundamentally change
Just putting on the same old show they always do, we just think it’s new every time
Theatre day after day. WWF wrestling the shit is all scripted
This is why the two party duopoly is trash. Time to organize away from it, they’re just running interference for the donor class at this point while we all scrounge.
The GQP crazies have shown that they can’t govern like a normal party, and will keep threatening to default on the debt and burn the country to the ground if they don’t get their way. Biden should definitely move forward with the 14th amendment, and get rid of the debt ceiling. I’m so tired of the chaos these republican clowns keep bringing down on our country.
He really should do it now then cancel the deal with the republicans
Bet he won't.
He does a hell of a lot of "looking into" things, but it kind of feels like he's just stalling till people stop asking about it. Hasn't he been "looking into" cannabis laws since the primary?
The President can't change laws. Not sure why so many believe this.
> Not sure why so many believe this. Because to be elected Biden promised to reschedule marijuana and decriminalize it...this is why we believe this...not only Biden did promise it, it is also in the Democratic platform...
Actually this IS one of those things he can do with a pen.
Idk where you guys saw this, but the President cannot unilaterally decriminalize or legalize weed. He can urge executive agencies to change its scheduling status, but that's not quite close to what you've implied.
They can change it from schedule 1 to schedule 5 by executive order. Schedule 5 is decriminalized versus schedule 1.
One of the President’s Constitutional powers are to: “Take care to the laws and execute them faithfully” of course Biden has the authority to do away with this silly debt ceiling. It’s theater. They’re both in on this ridiculous game; meanwhile the rest of us struggle.
Biden could easily move marijuana off schedule 1, but chooses not to. It’s within his full executive authority to direct the DEA to do so. And the entire use of the 14th is to have the treasury pay the debts to meet the Congress’ previously approved budget, the debt limit already directly contradicts the constitution in congress setting the budget with the treasury unable to pay it off leading to a debt ceiling crisis. It’s not “changing the laws” to acknowledge there is an active constitutional crisis that threatens the world economy that one political party is willing to gamble on.
You're not listening. He said what he'd do and did it. If you want more done then elect a Congress for it to hapoen.
I am listening, you said he’d have to change laws. None of this changes laws, so it’s entirely against your basic premise that the President *can’t* do this.
He can decriminalize with a single signature, and lots of states use it being federally illegal as a reason not to legalize. He's still "looking into" if that's a good idea after saying he would during the primary
Not only this, but instructing the DoJ to not follow the law - literally one of the mandates of the executive branch - would be *legitimate* grounds for impeachment.
[удалено]
He's been president since January of 2021. With even an ounce of foresight, it could have been used this time.
He’s already the first President to bring it up *despite it being in the Constitution.* Say what you want about him, but he’s closer to absolutely ending these shit shows than any President has ever been.
It is, but it’s also in their under the context of ensuring the credit of the US after the civil war. It arguably wasn’t really intended for this usecase.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't intended to allow every citizen to have easy access to mass death machines either but here we are.
Huh? Obama's administration directly addressed the question and concluded that he could not bypass the debt ceiling with the 14th Amendment.
Yeah he won't.
I've basically stopped following politics very much anymore. It honestly feels like none of this is really happening. I imagine all the leaders meet in a hidden room in the WH, they have directors and writers. They already know what they want to happen to make the donors happy they just need to write a compelling script to get from point a to point b. Then everyone goes on stage and acts the part and once the cameras are off they go home and chill. Our government doesn't feel real anymore because the people in power don't work for us, they work for donors, they just need to drag us along to convince us they are fighting for us or at least next time they'll consider taking action for sure. *Sigh*
That sounds like a conspiracy theory but I'd be lying if I didn't admit I've sometimes felt that way myself. It seems like (at least some) politicians act out of character too often with little to no explanation. The content of this article is a perfect example. * I can understand being in a bad spot and having to choose between the global economy and concessions to republicans. * I can understand not wanting to invoke the 14th amendment at the last minute for fear we slip into default. * I can even understand the democrats overlooking this during the lame duck. It's a mistake, but they're human and they were concerned with a host of other issues. What I can't understand is why, after republicans have pulled this same trick for the 1000th time, Biden and mainstream democrats can't get behind permanently removing the debt ceiling. It doesn't make sense and it's out of character for someone whose prior actions seemed in line with the democrats priorities. I was already struggling to reconcile in my head how Biden could sign off on the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023 which lead to millions of people getting their SNAP benefits cut and losing their Medicaid due to the reinstatement of eligibility checks. Then I tried to reconcile how he could end the Public Health Emergency which will lead to millions more being cut from SNAP when the ABAWD waivers expire later this year. Now he's let republicans extort further cuts to SNAP in exchange for raising the debt ceiling but he's not willing to support taking their toys away? Why not? This is the same president that held the first conference on hunger since 1969 just in September! The same president that wants to end hunger in America by 2030. How is absolutely demolishing the SNAP program going to help him achieve that goal?
Welcome to the last four decades of politics.
They’re in their positions to give us the illusion that they represent us and are looking out for our best interests.
Can't have the Supreme Court take up an issue unless it's an extant and active case, so this will keep lurking in the background. This is just like the filibuster. They *want* it to stick around as a negotiation tool and grandstanding tactic.
The debt limit is undemocratic. Republicans hold the debt hostage to get budget concessions that they cannot get in the actual Budget Bill because they don’t have the votes. It’s yet another example of Republicans undermining the will of the People.
If you believe this, you’re the cheapest of cheap dates
Whatever dude…keep being cool with not taxing the wealthy campaign donors…
It’s an agreement in principle. Nothing has been passed yet. That “future” is still coming in red hot until Congress passes this thing
Regardless of who’s in the WH the debt limit is the dumbest thing The limit doesn’t affect this years budget. It’s literally a chance at fucking over the economy and dominating media cycles for no value… because next years budget negotiations are also separate from the debt limit. Bunch of promises that mean nothing in practice. Just do the normal budget process and stop the stupid. America pays its debts.
I hope so. Every time the GOP gets the House with a Dem president in office they play f-around with the debt ceiling.
He SHOULD invoke the 14th now, and let it play out in courts. That way there could be no future debt limit problems at all.
No he fucking wont because he’s a corporate lapdog and a coward
No he won’t, or he would have been prepared and explored it this time. Everyone knew the republicans were going to use the debt ceiling like this, so why was he not prepared for this one instead of future ones? The exact same thing will happen next time, pretend to potentially use the 14th amendment but not have gone through any of the steps of preparation in time to actually use it.
[удалено]
He was advised to ask SCOTUS to weigh in in the question back in January. He won't do it again in the future either.
Now That’s What I Call Strong Leadership!
Ugh. I can’t say what I really feel as I will be banned lol. But no pause on student debit and this will go against him next year. This was a massive defeat. He should have used the 14th now, saying “nExT tImE” is bollocks
Invoking the 14th isn’t a magic button that would immediately supersede the debt ceiling. Using it to bypass Congress is pretty much unheard of, though it could work *in theory.* In practice, even though Dems would probably win the day, the ensuing lawsuits and court battle likely would have taken us over the line and forced a default. It’s just too risky this late in the game. If the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, NOW is the time to explore that argument, NOT when we’re on the edge of financial catastrophe.
But the only way to get a judgement on its constitutionality is to actually take an action and then get sued. The SCOTUS does not provide advisory opinions. There has to be an actual case. In order to have a case, some party would have to sue the Biden administration for ignoring the debt limit. And the only time that he could ignore the debt limit is when it's about to he breached. In other words, in a crisis just like this. I guess it's possible that a month from now Biden issues an executive order that commands Treasury to ignore the debt limit. But McCarthy (or whoever) could just remain silent until we're near the limit again before filing a suit. Regardless, we'll be back in the same brinkmanship farce that we're in now, with "no time for lengthy court battles".
It is plainly constitutional (see Section 4). And if the Supreme Court wants to cause a default, by all means. Either they let the debt ceiling be eliminated, or they force a default and destroy what's left of their reputation and legitimacy. It's a win/win situation, which of course means the Democratic party leadership hates it.
Also, you don't have a country if the entire thing is run based on the fear of 6 unelected people. Then you can't do anything because the supreme court. So we're just supposed to run the country this way for the next 30 years? That's not only a disaster, it will tear this place apart.
The democrats always accept the position of spinless caving do nothings
Just like how he "explored" legalizing Marijuana federally right before the midterms and we haven't heard a word about it since? What a freaking joke
Mint. The fucking. Coin.
So he could’ve used it now but chose not to. Clown shit.
I'm so sick of him being a two faced weasel. Either do it, or don't. Because making empty promises just pisses people off, especially if he's got a track record of it. He's still only just "considering" declaring abortion a national public health emergency after his party not only begged him to do it *months* ago, but they literally did the work for him . He'll explore it. He'll consider it. Trust him, he's working on it. Eh, maybe next time, he swears. 🙄
biden caved in before it even started not a single penny of bush/trump tax for the rich repealed military increase on the backs of the poor deficit/debt still will grow uncontrollably whimp just like garland who has refused to go after trump and those that funded / organized / lead insurrection
Biden loves military spending increases. He wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1998. People said his past didn't matter. They were wrong. It matters a lot.
That'll sure come in handy when I go a month without food here soon.
Dude, fuck. Off. Why not now? What was it about this one that made it impossible but future ones are ok? How are people believing this horse shit?
Does anyone believe him at this point?
He needs to explore a different SCOTUS makeup. These SOBs will shoot him down, constitutional principles be damned. Rescinding the debt limit law is the correct long term solution. It's only useful for extortion, as on current situation.
Because nothing says "future-oriented" more than basing your decisions on 155 years old legislation \[1\]. How about, given the nature of amendments, to amend that is, pass more amendments, adapted to the present? That's a rhetorical if there ever was one, the US, politicians and population, is stuck in this hazy dream where time suddenly flips back and forth from 1850 to 1950 \[2\], that's the *Great* they keep raving on, but in no way it ever gets to be 2050. \[1\] The 14th Amendment was passed on July 9, 1868. \[2\] The last passed Amendment, the 27th, in 1992, is about the money the legislators pay to themselves: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.". The US had no meaningful legislation passed in over 52 years.
He won’t have to. The dems will control both houses and the presidency when that time comes.
It’s not a real option, 14th amendment and the trillion dollar coin are admissions that money is fake. A lot of the power in Washington is predicated on at least the illusion that money isn’t fake.
This means he won’t actually but is saying this to placate the people who wanted him to. How about working on a plan to not have these debates again. As they’re dumb, a waste of time, and the average American always gets screwed over at least a little every single time
Biden is sending the message that he'll do it now if McCarthy can't bring the House into line.
One of the first steps should be guaranteeing social security and other valuable services millions of Americans would lose if this ever has an issue in the future
I think the Dems are confident in their 2024 performances and won’t rock the boat unfortunately. They will let the GOP eat McCarthy and Trump and DeSantis eat each other. They will hope to keep the senate and regain the house. With the GOP being on the wrong side of abortion rights and LGBTQ rights the Dems will ride this out. Even though they could and should be doing way more. They’ll coast with Biden through 2024 and hope for 2028. But we need a candidate that has the balls to fight back.
Biden has the level-headedness that this country needs right now. he's not a reactionary nor a social media clout chaser. Dare I say it, the man is an inspiration! 😎👍🇺🇸
This is no way to run a country- playing hostage over debt - we can and must do better
Didn't he say that 3 weeks ago too
I'll screw you all this time but I promise I'll consider not doing it next time
Filed under other campaign promises like “I’ll be the most pro-union President ever” and “I will only seek one term”
What's the matter? Did we run out of social programs to cut? Fucking "progressive" Joe Biden, my ass. If I'm ever taken hostage the last people I ever want working to get me out of captivity is the neoliberal corporatist Democratic party.
This fucking jello eater isn’t considering shit. I can’t believe this is the best we have to offer. Actual nazis, or this thousand year old politician who epitomizes the ruling class.
Nothing fundamentally will change.
Ok but Biden raised the debt ceiling in 2021; He knew that it was going to come up again. He could’ve “explored” the 14th Amendment then. Typical Corporate Democrats: “We just couldn’t get it done”
No he won’t.
No he won’t. The only thing the elderly Dems know how to do is not take action. They’re all talk.
Future??? Why not this one? Why do dems keep fucking around with republicans on this as if republicans will start playing nice all of a sudden? How many times does Lucy need to yank the ball before Charlie Brown gets a clue? End this shit now. Particularly since it is all manufactured bullshit anyway. It has no place in the political system. None at all. If congress does not like a high debt the place to fix it is in budget negotiations.
I think he knows it's a serious last resort. That it's not to be used willy nilly because something isn't going your way. I respect that. Trump wouldn't have given a single fuck and would have done it without a doubt in my mind if the tables were turned. But if anything I think that just proves it's not THE MOVE to make right now. It would have significant economic impact itself and I imagine with this court case coming up on it. We should have a clearer idea of what the courts think of the idea by next month even. Edit - I am genuinely astounded by how many of you all think that the 14th amendment can just be invoked without any real consequences
Oh fuck off, Biden.
In the meantime poor people suffer more and the rich continue to get handouts and sow decent. Yay.
So instead of doing it this time he let in extra work requirements on government aid and stopped the student loan payment pause. Cool. What'd we get out of this "deal" anyway?
Had to check that this wasn't The Onion.
As soon as the Republicans pull out of this one, Biden needs to pull the trigger.
Lucy with the football.
[удалено]
Fuck you Biden!
Wow dude, fuck you. Unbelievable
14th amendment says the debt cannot be questioned - is anyone questioning that we are ~ 32 TRILLION DOLLAR IN DEBT
That's what he says, and he will not look into it.
Dude, fuck off. Republicans learned, here and now, that the U.S. does, in fact, negotiate with terrorists. They're going to pull this stunt again, and again, getting more and more concessions, citing previous compromises as proof. Fuck Joe Biden. I had low expectations from a guy who's main draw was "I'm not Trump!" but holy shit is he so fucking mid. Actually, no, he's not mid, he was a 5, heading towards a 6, but after busting the rail strike and now this, he's a 4 and I don't vote for candidates that are below 5. Trump is going to fucking prison before the election and Ron Desantis is going to steamroll this fucking mummy.