Debt limit antics this go 'round: same posturing for the base? Or for realz calamity?

[lawgator1]

McCarthy, whose hold on the speakership and the party, are tenuous at best, has had to tack on more and more and more conditions to the debt limit bill. Things with no chance in the Senate, much less Biden. Tax credits, environmental deregulation, all sorts of hard liner wish list components.

We've seen this movie a dozen times. Is this more "keep those checks coming" GOP antics, or is there real risk McCarthy cannot at the end muster the votes?

 

[LouderVol]

oh its definitely bluster. neither side cares until the other one is in power. The Dem's were screeching about Trump's spending. The Rep's were screeching about Obama's spending.

its all socialism, we just argue over which color of socialism we support.

 

[McDad]

The soap opera melodrama of which liar is placed where doesn't matter to me. And to be honest, it is rather disheartening to see grown men be so wrapped up in the drama; as if it is a 1980s prime time television show.

Re debt ceiling: I have interest to see who has a semblance of rationality to go against more debt. Biden's paid PR liar claimed not raising the ceiling would be detrimental for the country. If our county relies on ever-increasing debt to be robust, we might as well burn the whole thing down and start again.

Re tacking on additional unrelated riders to proposed bills: I have not seen any party lead by example or stand on principle that bills should be stand alone, be simple in scope, and easy to comprehend. Perhaps the last politician to even espouse such a notion was James Madison.

This is more of the same. Hyenas howling hysterically clamoring for control of the pack while the watering hole slowly turns to dust.

 

[hog88]

McCarthy, whose hold on the speakership and the party, are tenuous at best, has had to tack on more and more and more conditions to the debt limit bill. Things with no chance in the Senate, much less Biden. Tax credits, environmental deregulation, all sorts of hard liner wish list components.

We've seen this movie a dozen times. Is this more "keep those checks coming" GOP antics, or is there real risk McCarthy cannot at the end muster the votes?

I thought Biden was known for working across the isle? Was that just another lie?

 

[Orangeburst]

McCarthy, whose hold on the speakership and the party, are tenuous at best, has had to tack on more and more and more conditions to the debt limit bill. Things with no chance in the Senate, much less Biden. Tax credits, environmental deregulation, all sorts of hard liner wish list components.

We've seen this movie a dozen times. Is this more "keep those checks coming" GOP antics, or is there real risk McCarthy cannot at the end muster the votes?

All those add ons were never a problem with passing 10K page spending bills.

 

[McDad]

 

[LouderVol]

View attachment 548398

line item voting, line item vetoing.

 

[rjd970]

This should be a clean bill that can be passed, anybody adding amendments with pet projects and agenda pushing should be publicly and relentlessly called out and ridiculed. Goes for both sides.

 

[McDad]

I thought Biden was known for working across the isle? Was that just another lie?

Senator Biden voted against debt ceiling increases and extensions, missed one vote but claimed he would have voted against had he been present. Each time he was against it was because Rs were for it. He's such an example of aisle reaching and compromise.

 

[KB5252]

line item voting, line item vetoing.

Yes, makes them work...... They spend too much time being wined and dined, corrupted at our expense. If they want to make this a career we as the people must demand they earn it. Line item voting so they are accountable, no spin.

 

[McDad]

Yes, makes them work...... They spend too much time being wined and dined, corrupted at our expense. If they want to make this a career we as the people must demand they earn it. Line item voting so they are accountable, no spin.

From wikipedia:
Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[13][14]

 

[Vol737]

It will end one day…in fantastic fashion. And most people will wonder “WTF?” only to find their line of reasoning to just keep extending the debt limit was completely devoid of any understanding of what would ultimately happen. Burn baby, burn.

 

[LouderVol]

From wikipedia:
Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[13][14]

didn't know that. I wonder if it would be constitutional if there was corresponding power for the legislative & judicial. The president could line item veto, but the legislative couldn't line item vote, and I guess the judicial can't make line item rulings. I could see that being unconstitutional, but seems like an easy fix.

 

[KB5252]

From wikipedia:
Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[13][14]

So they can't line item vote because they can't line item veto?

 

[KB5252]

From wikipedia:
Congress granted this power to the president by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to control "pork barrel spending", but in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision in Clinton v. City of New York. The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times.[13][14]

And doesn't this only apply to presidential veto?

 

[McDad]

And doesn't this only apply to presidential veto?

AFAIK. There are still many states with governors who have line item veto power.

 

[hog88]

So they can't line item vote because they can't line item veto?

Congress could always start the process to add it to the constitution. But we'll never see that, plus I'm opposed to giving the executive branch more power. I'd rather see an amendment doing away with riders. Only single issue legislation allowed.

 

[Orangeburst]

Yellen Warns of 'Economic and Financial Catastrophe,' but Insists It's 'Preventable'

 

[McDad]

So they can't line item vote because they can't line item veto?

Considering the justices in 1998, there is no telling what the "constitutionality" of their decision was.
Who were the Supreme Court Justices in 1998?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
David Hackett Souter,
Clarence Thomas,
Stephen Breyer;
Antonin Scalia,
John Paul Stevens,
William Hubbs Rehnquist,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Anthony M. Kennedy.

 

[McDad]

Congress could always start the process to add it to the constitution. But we'll never see that, plus I'm opposed to giving the executive branch more power. I'd rather see an amendment doing away with riders. Only single issue legislation allowed.

both are about as likely as Vanderbilt winning the National Championship in football.

 

[McDad]

Yellen Warns of 'Economic and Financial Catastrophe,' but Insists It's 'Preventable'

The lead paragraph:
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday warned of an “economic and financial catastrophe” that would decimate jobs and make loans more expensive for years to come if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the government defaults on its obligations.

Here's an alternative plan, Janet. Cut spending on "non essential" budgets in order to meet the government's obligations. Every citizen, regardless of age, already owes almost $100,000 in borrowed and wasted money.

 

[Orangeburst]

We have to bypass the mess that is DC
So close yet so far

Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application - COSAction

 

[hog88]

both are about as likely as Vanderbilt winning the National Championship in football.

Yep, no chance.

 

[volinbham]

I thought Biden was known for working across the isle? Was that just another lie?

won't even meet with McCarthy but yeah, he's all about bipartisanship

 

[McDad]

Yep, no chance.

Americans do not have the stomach for armed revolution to take back power from DC. DC will never give up power on its own. The judiciary will not limit the scope to constitutional power.

There really is no hope that the balance of power improves.