Originally posted by sh76 Isn't borrowing and spending the same thing in this context?
No.
One can borrow without spending more.
One can spend without borrowing more.
More to the point, much spending is required by existing law. If Congress wants to spend less on say Social Security benefits, it has to change the law setting those benefits. It cannot spend less on SS benefits merely by setting a "debt limit" if Section 4 of the 14 Amendment means anything.
Originally posted by normbenign " Money, by its nature, is fiat and without intrinsic value."
Paper money perhaps. Even paper money when backed by some tangible commodity (gold, silver, titanium, oil) isn't fiat. Fiat money is Federal Reserve notes, based on debt, and redeemable for nothing, and designated as legal tender.
Again, if a debt ceiling is routinely raised it isn't re ...[text shortened]... he Constitutionality of a ceiling. I think I prefer the older method, as more responsible.
Even the value of gold is based on nothing any more tangible than psychology, so you merely argue matters of degree.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's irrelevant to the discussion sh76 and I are having. He seems to have asserted that Congress had a plenary power to set the debt ceiling as it sees fit. I'm asking if that's what he really meant to say; a power to set a debt ceiling implies a power to set it at whatever level Congress chooses.
Congress has the "power of the purse," and really a "debt ceiling" is nothing more than some kind of legislation that effectively requires some kind of supermajority to overcome it. Conversely Congress could, in theory, refuse to pay debts and defund Social Security based on a majority vote to pass some other kind of legislation. It seems to me to be much an argument over little.
Originally posted by Soothfast Congress has the "power of the purse," and really a "debt ceiling" is nothing more than some kind of legislation that effectively requires some kind of supermajority to overcome it. Conversely Congress could, in theory, refuse to pay debts and defund Social Security based on a majority vote to pass some other kind of legislation. It seems to me to be much an argument over little.
I suggest you review the OP and the linked article.
Originally posted by Soothfast Even the value of gold is based on nothing any more tangible than psychology, so you merely argue matters of degree.
You are right in the sense that money is whatever is accepted by people as of value. However when government tells us paper is "legal tender" which must be accepted in payment of debts, and that currency is issued by a non governmental agency, it is a bit different than people being able to exchange that paper for something solid.
The US Constitution gives as one of it's few powers delegated to Congress to coin money, and Congress farmed it out to a private bank.
Originally posted by Soothfast Congress has the "power of the purse," and really a "debt ceiling" is nothing more than some kind of legislation that effectively requires some kind of supermajority to overcome it. Conversely Congress could, in theory, refuse to pay debts and defund Social Security based on a majority vote to pass some other kind of legislation. It seems to me to be much an argument over little.
Actually not even a super majority is required for either the debt ceiling or modification of Social Security.
Originally posted by no1marauder I suggest you review the OP and the linked article.
Haven't read the article, but did read the original post about the 14th Amendment before posting anything in this thread. From what I can tell (being no attorney or constitutional scholar), a debt limit of the kind under discussion is indeed unconstitutional. "Pensions" are mentioned right there in the Amendment, and if Social Security doesn't fall under the heading of pensions I don't know what does. Social Security is a social contract in the same spirit of "pensions" as they were understood in the 19th century. You can only rightly take it away from generations that haven't paid into it yet, I think.
Originally posted by Soothfast Haven't read the article, but did read the original post about the 14th Amendment before posting anything in this thread. From what I can tell (being no attorney or constitutional scholar), a debt limit of the kind under discussion is indeed unconstitutional. "Pensions" are mentioned right there in the Amendment, and if Social Security doesn't fall under ...[text shortened]... u can only rightly take it away from generations that haven't paid into it yet, I think.
Social Security is not a pension. It is some kind of hybrid, with new stuff being added every time Congress modifies it. The first big argument over Social Security was over the tax supporting it. Was it another income tax, an excise? What was it? Now it is like other entities, "too big to fail", and most of those "too big to fail" entities are among the most corrupt and criminal.
Originally posted by normbenign You are right in the sense that money is whatever is accepted by people as of value. However when government tells us paper is "legal tender" which must be accepted in payment of debts, and that currency is issued by a non governmental agency, it is a bit different than people being able to exchange that paper for something solid.
The US Constitution ...[text shortened]... few powers delegated to Congress to coin money, and Congress farmed it out to a private bank.
It's been brought to right wingers' attention several times here that the Treasury, not the Fed, issues the currency.
Originally posted by normbenign Social Security is not a pension. It is some kind of hybrid, with new stuff being added every time Congress modifies it. The first big argument over Social Security was over the tax supporting it. Was it another income tax, an excise? What was it? Now it is like other entities, "too big to fail", and most of those "too big to fail" entities are among the most corrupt and criminal.
Social security is corrupt and criminal? And our entire monetary system is corrupt and criminal?
Perhaps you should consider moving to some paradise of moral rectitude and virtue, like say...Byelorussia or Sudan.
Is the Debt Limit Unconstitutional?
01 Jul '11 00:08
Back to Top