One thing about the Pt coin tactic, it will almost certainly drive every goldbug into conniptions. There's no better way to emphasize what fiat currency really means, I think.
I must have missed it, but what's the Pt coin tactic?
The treasury is legally prohibited from printing more paper money.
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
Yes, the "Either we violate the budget law or we violate the debt ceiling. Pick." is a better legal argument. Not one I'd want to go to court on unless the judge was my father in law, but better than the 14th amendment route, and beggars can't be choosers. Though if it gets that far I think it's still a matter of limiting rather than preventing the debt downgrade and economic freefall.
That's what the 14th Amendment protects, and that's what this crisis is threatening to damage. That's the very heart of why it is a crisis.
No. The 14th amendment requires that we PAY our T-bills. The argument is
"since we must issue new debt to pay t-bills and other obligations of the U.S. which must be paid according to the 14th any law that says we cannot issue new debt is unconstitutional (as it prevents us from paying)"
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The only obligation specifically exempted by the 14th Amendment is debt incurred in support of treason and insurrection, so you are fucking wrong.
I'm reading that as "including pensions and bounties" and a brief explanation of the sort of bounties to be honored (those paid to suppress rebellion).
What sort of 'pension' would be issued to suppress a rebellion?
[edit] Oops. Exempted. I'm sorry, I never learned to read.
From what I gather the pt coin solution would be printing tons of money to cover our obligations right?
which would hyperinflate the dollar pretty heavily
Not when you're up against the zero lower bound. We have continually been incapable of producing inflation even though it'd be the best way to resolve a lot of the debt overhang.
From what I gather the pt coin solution would be printing tons of money to cover our obligations right?
which would hyperinflate the dollar pretty heavily
Yup, everyone would suddenly be unable to afford the basics like food and gasoline, without a car full of bills.
Should this happen, or begin to happen then the international owners of our debt will sell it all off further accelerating hyperinflation of the dollar with respect to other major currencies. This will be rapidly followed by the largest set of bank runs in history, effectively ending modern civilization over a short couple of years.
The 14th amendment says that the US can't voluntarily choose not to pay interest + principal on its legally issued debt instruments. That's it. The way out of this debt crises does not go through the 14th amendment. Not without 3 or 4 sudden supreme court retirements.
So it boils down to what exactly will be considered as "debt" then if the whole thing goes legalese.
That's what the 14th Amendment protects, and that's what this crisis is threatening to damage. That's the very heart of why it is a crisis.
No. The 14th amendment requires that we PAY our T-bills. The argument is
"since we must issue new debt to pay t-bills and other obligations of the U.S. which must be paid according to the 14th any law that says we cannot issue new debt is unconstitutional (as it prevents us from paying)"
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The only obligation specifically exempted by the 14th Amendment is debt incurred in support of treason and insurrection, so you are fucking wrong.
I'm reading that as "including pensions and bounties" and a brief explanation of the sort of bounties to be honored (those paid to suppress rebellion).
What sort of 'pension' would be issued to suppress a rebellion?
I read the 14th as saying public debt is all debt incurred by the U. S. government, excluding debt accrued for assisting insurrection/rebellion. It merely calls out pensions and bounties specifically so they will not be looked over. It does not read to me as though it is intended to only cover pensions and bounties, but those were the major issues when the 14th passed originally.
From what I gather the pt coin solution would be printing tons of money to cover our obligations right?
which would hyperinflate the dollar pretty heavily
Yup, everyone would suddenly be unable to afford the basics like food and gasoline, without a car full of bills.
Should this happen, or begin to happen then the international owners of our debt will sell it all off further accelerating hyperinflation of the dollar with respect to other major currencies. This will be rapidly followed by the largest set of bank runs in history, effectively ending modern civilization over a short couple of years.
Not necessarily.
Provided that the treasury disposes of the coins once they can borrow again they shouldn't have much impact since they won't enter circulation. The US is perfectly able to borrow a LOT more than our current debt, that's not the issue, we're just not legally allowed to. This would basically be borrowing the money from ourselves (so as to not pass the debt ceiling).
@Bagginses - exploiting a little-known statute that gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to mint platinum bullion and coins of arbitrary design - and value. So he can mint a platinum coin the size of a penny and have it be worth however much in legal tender.
One thing about the Pt coin tactic, it will almost certainly drive every goldbug into conniptions. There's no better way to emphasize what fiat currency really means, I think.
I've been hearing about this option recently but was confused, wouldn't that kick-up inflation given the amount being minted? Or would that not matter given the current state of the economy?
It would impact inflation since we just magicked up $2t, but seeing how we are facing a deflationary spiral that would be a feature not a bug.
Pretty much. Essentially it grabs hold of monetary policy and pulls it back from the Fed to the White House, by slowly monetizing whatever amount of the debt that cannot be raised above the ceiling. The Fed still retains its mandate over price stability, though, and would have to try and pull money back in as the White House creates it. Regardless, it just means that as a political bludgeon the debt ceiling is finished; a failure to raise the ceiling just creates inflation "automatically" instead of spending cuts "automatically", as the teapers want.
I think Obama should just wipe the dust off all the old Kennedy and dollar coin presses and issue all payment in those. It'll be hilarious watching people getting giant bags of coins as payment.
One thing about the Pt coin tactic, it will almost certainly drive every goldbug into conniptions. There's no better way to emphasize what fiat currency really means, I think.
I must have missed it, but what's the Pt coin tactic?
The treasury is legally prohibited from printing more paper money.
The 14th amendment says that the US can't voluntarily choose not to pay interest + principal on its legally issued debt instruments. That's it. The way out of this debt crises does not go through the 14th amendment. Not without 3 or 4 sudden supreme court retirements.
So it boils down to what exactly will be considered as "debt" then if the whole thing goes legalese.
Tiger is just wrong and fully half of Augusts payment will require debt to finance.
I read the 14th as saying public debt is all debt incurred by the U. S. government, excluding debt accrued for assisting insurrection/rebellion. It merely calls out pensions and bounties specifically so they will not be looked over. It does not read to me as though it is intended to only cover pensions and bounties, but those were the major issues when the 14th passed originally.
Yes, this is also my read on it. I realized what you meant when I read the words that you wrote in the order that you actually wrote them.
No. The 14th amendment requires that we PAY our T-bills. The argument is
"since we must issue new debt to pay t-bills and other obligations of the U.S. which must be paid according to the 14th any law that says we cannot issue new debt is unconstitutional (as it prevents us from paying)"
The 14th Amendment is very clear about what it says. You can read it:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
The words Treasury Bonds do not appear anywhere in it. I'm sure there are buckets of legal precedent and procedural rules that clarify and define these terms.
I'm also sure that none of this will matter if the U.S. is seen as violating its debt obligations on the international scale. The Full Faith and Credit of the United States will have been damaged.
Laws say what courts say that they say.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
From what I gather the pt coin solution would be printing tons of money to cover our obligations right?
which would hyperinflate the dollar pretty heavily
Yup, everyone would suddenly be unable to afford the basics like food and gasoline, without a car full of bills.
Should this happen, or begin to happen then the international owners of our debt will sell it all off further accelerating hyperinflation of the dollar with respect to other major currencies. This will be rapidly followed by the largest set of bank runs in history, effectively ending modern civilization over a short couple of years.
Not necessarily.
Provided that the treasury disposes of the coins once they can borrow again they shouldn't have much impact since they won't enter circulation. The US is perfectly able to borrow a LOT more than our current debt, that's not the issue, we're just not legally allowed to. This would basically be borrowing the money from ourselves (so as to not pass the debt ceiling).
So we buy the 172 billion dollar coins back when we can borrow again?
I think Obama should just wipe the dust off all the old Kennedy and dollar coin presses and issue all payment in those. It'll be hilarious watching people getting giant bags of coins as payment.
Actually there are already over a billion dollar coins just sitting in the vaults not being used. With more being printed because they are required to by congress. (old bill) So he can start with those.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The only obligation specifically exempted by the 14th Amendment is debt incurred in support of treason and insurrection, so you are fucking wrong.
And now for a lesson in "how to read"
Sometimes, like this, we put clauses in between commas. The clause that is inbetween the commas can be taken entirely out of the sentence and it still makes sense. Notice how the sentence reads perfectly fine as "sometimes we put clauses in between commas"? That is because that is the sentence. The clause in the middle expands and clarifies. In this case, because we had just had a war and the legislature was afraid the south was going to try to fuck things up they said "especially these debts, you seriously can't fuck with these, don't even bother trying we put it in the actual wording so it would be as unambiguous as possible"
This is not a list. The 14th amendment protects the "public debt" which is all debt legally issued and all obligations that the government has accepted (for instance if the Govt accepts your labor for which it will pay you later, your salary is part of the public debt. Contracts the govt enters into etc).
So we buy the 172 billion dollar coins back when we can borrow again?
No. You never give them away (you can, if you like, imagine Geithner keeping them in a safe under his desk). You, the Treasury, give their formal ownership to the Fed, and the Fed uses its own existing authority to create US dollars, which it then gives to you, and you then give those bog-standard US dollars to whatever your appropriations bill told you to give them to.
No. The 14th amendment requires that we PAY our T-bills. The argument is
"since we must issue new debt to pay t-bills and other obligations of the U.S. which must be paid according to the 14th any law that says we cannot issue new debt is unconstitutional (as it prevents us from paying)"
The 14th Amendment is very clear about what it says. You can read it:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
The words Treasury Bonds do not appear anywhere in it. I'm sure there are buckets of legal precedent and procedural rules that clarify and define these terms.
I'm also sure that none of this will matter if the U.S. is seen as violating its debt obligations on the international scale. The Full Faith and Credit of the United States will have been damaged.
Laws say what courts say that they say.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
Actually the problem is that the 2011 Budget law and the debt ceiling law are in conflict, right now.
By following one of those laws you violate the other, so wrong again!
It is a catch-22 where neither course is actually legal ...
From what I gather the pt coin solution would be printing tons of money to cover our obligations right?
which would hyperinflate the dollar pretty heavily
Yup, everyone would suddenly be unable to afford the basics like food and gasoline, without a car full of bills.
Should this happen, or begin to happen then the international owners of our debt will sell it all off further accelerating hyperinflation of the dollar with respect to other major currencies. This will be rapidly followed by the largest set of bank runs in history, effectively ending modern civilization over a short couple of years.
Not necessarily.
Provided that the treasury disposes of the coins once they can borrow again they shouldn't have much impact since they won't enter circulation. The US is perfectly able to borrow a LOT more than our current debt, that's not the issue, we're just not legally allowed to. This would basically be borrowing the money from ourselves (so as to not pass the debt ceiling).
So we buy the 172 billion dollar coins back when we can borrow again?
Not exactly. It's more like burning a shitload of dollar bills (yall) once we can borrow again.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
You do realize that American courts do not govern the entire world? You do realize that this is about an issue of our debt integrity to the rest of the world? You do realize that the point of the 14th Amendment is to protect the integrity of American debt to the rest of the world?
This is how folly happens. The opinion of the American internal court system has as much validity on whether the world decides we are no longer a safe haven for investment as a German court ruling in 1944 that it was illegal to invade would have saved Hitler.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The only obligation specifically exempted by the 14th Amendment is debt incurred in support of treason and insurrection, so you are fucking wrong.
And now for a lesson in "how to read"
Sometimes, like this, we put clauses in between commas. The clause that is inbetween the commas can be taken entirely out of the sentence and it still makes sense. Notice how the sentence reads perfectly fine as "sometimes we put clauses in between commas"? That is because that is the sentence. The clause in the middle expands and clarifies. In this case, because we had just had a war and the legislature was afraid the south was going to try to fuck things up they said "especially these debts, you seriously can't fuck with these, don't even bother trying we put it in the actual wording so it would be as unambiguous as possible"
This is not a list. The 14th amendment protects the "public debt" which is all debt legally issued and all obligations that the government has accepted (for instance if the Govt accepts your labor for which it will pay you later, your salary is part of the public debt. Contracts the govt enters into etc).
Now a lesson in reading to you:
The above is a goose-ish paraphrasing of my exact argument from a few posts up.
We agree on exactly what you said - it is not a list, those are simply particularly important.
Sorry for my snarking on that, but we agree on that one single point.
No. The 14th amendment requires that we PAY our T-bills. The argument is
"since we must issue new debt to pay t-bills and other obligations of the U.S. which must be paid according to the 14th any law that says we cannot issue new debt is unconstitutional (as it prevents us from paying)"
The 14th Amendment is very clear about what it says. You can read it:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
The words Treasury Bonds do not appear anywhere in it. I'm sure there are buckets of legal precedent and procedural rules that clarify and define these terms.
I'm also sure that none of this will matter if the U.S. is seen as violating its debt obligations on the international scale. The Full Faith and Credit of the United States will have been damaged.
Laws say what courts say that they say.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
Regardless of stipulations about what the President should or shouldn't do, would you at least agree that the 14th amendment implies that not raising the debt ceiling in this situation is unconstitutional?
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court has found that Social Security reimbursements are not contractual in Fleming. They can choose not to pay without violating the 14th Amendment.
I think it's pretty clear that the " including debts incurred for payment of pensions " clause in the 14th isn't referring to paying the pensions themselves but the rather payments on the debt taken out to pay them.
That still doesn't make it clear why a law that has as it's sole function making it impossible to pay that debt under certain circumstances doesn't run afoul of the 14th.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
You do realize that American courts do not govern the entire world? You do realize that this is about an issue of our debt integrity to the rest of the world? You do realize that the point of the 14th Amendment is to protect the integrity of American debt to the rest of the world?
This is how folly happens. The opinion of the American internal court system has as much validity on whether the world decides we are no longer a safe haven for investment as a German court ruling in 1944 that it was illegal to invade would have saved Hitler.
Let's try this a different way. You tell me what actions you want the president to take, and I'll tell you why the "opinion of the American internal court system" matters.
You do realize that American courts do not govern the entire world? You do realize that this is about an issue of our debt integrity to the rest of the world? You do realize that the point of the 14th Amendment is to protect the integrity of American debt to the rest of the world?
This is how folly happens. The opinion of the American internal court system has as much validity on whether the world decides we are no longer a safe haven for investment as a German court ruling in 1944 that it was illegal to invade would have saved Hitler.
"the integrity" of our debt refers to us paying it. It does not refer to the price we have to pay to issue new debt to the market.
I think it's pretty clear that the " including debts incurred for payment of pensions " clause in the 14th isn't referring to paying the pensions themselves but the rather payments on the debt taken out to pay them.
That still doesn't make it clear why a law that has as it's sole function making it impossible to pay that debt under certain circumstances doesn't run afoul of the 14th.
It seems that the current debt ceiling law may be unconstitutional and violate the 14th Amendment, by having already partially undermined the Full Faith and Credit of The U.S., but who has standing to take it to the SCOTUS?
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The only obligation specifically exempted by the 14th Amendment is debt incurred in support of treason and insurrection, so you are fucking wrong.
And now for a lesson in "how to read"
Sometimes, like this, we put clauses in between commas. The clause that is inbetween the commas can be taken entirely out of the sentence and it still makes sense. Notice how the sentence reads perfectly fine as "sometimes we put clauses in between commas"? That is because that is the sentence. The clause in the middle expands and clarifies. In this case, because we had just had a war and the legislature was afraid the south was going to try to fuck things up they said "especially these debts, you seriously can't fuck with these, don't even bother trying we put it in the actual wording so it would be as unambiguous as possible"
This is not a list. The 14th amendment protects the "public debt" which is all debt legally issued and all obligations that the government has accepted (for instance if the Govt accepts your labor for which it will pay you later, your salary is part of the public debt. Contracts the govt enters into etc).
I think he meant to refer to the latter portion:
But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
As his point is that all our current debts are valid and must be honored because they do not relate to supporting rebellion (Libya probably doesn't count)
Running the printing presses full-stop is a Third World solution. We MIGHT get away with it once, solely because downgrading our debt would hurt everyone, and there is a chance we might clean up our after next year's election.
Or they might not and panic selling of U.S. Treasuries begins Tuesday.
Point is no one knows. We're being put in a global crisis of confidence over our ability to pay our debts by a runaway minority.* This is new ground for everyone.
The entire reason this is a big deal is that it's putting the integrity of our ability to repay debts into question on the global stage. You can't wish that away with a bunch of Supreme Court citations. World wasn't paying attention then. It is now.
You do realize that American courts do not govern the entire world? You do realize that this is about an issue of our debt integrity to the rest of the world? You do realize that the point of the 14th Amendment is to protect the integrity of American debt to the rest of the world?
This is how folly happens. The opinion of the American internal court system has as much validity on whether the world decides we are no longer a safe haven for investment as a German court ruling in 1944 that it was illegal to invade would have saved Hitler.
"the integrity" of our debt refers to us paying it.
The above is a goose-ish paraphrasing of my exact argument from a few posts up.
We agree on exactly what you said - it is not a list, those are simply particularly important.
Sorry for my snarking on that, but we agree on that one single point.
So if you agreed with my point and could read what was going on why did you quote me and say "you are fucking wrong" in bold, italics, and underline?
Yeah, I might not have been as careful with which quote I grabbed from your posts on that as I should have, but while I agree on this one point, I disagree with your other assertion that "public debt" has a limited definition. The only limit to what is considered public debt under the 14th Amendment is debt incurred for supporting rebellion and insurrection.
Posts
The treasury is legally prohibited from printing more paper money.
There is no limitation on coinage, though.
Supposedly they're considering minting 20 Barack Obama platinum coins, valued at $100Billion each.
They mint those, deposit them, and pay off a lot of things.
The idea being that they float those coins until they can get the debt ceiling raised, and then melt them down when they aren't needed.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm reading that as "including pensions and bounties" and a brief explanation of the sort of bounties to be honored (those paid to suppress rebellion).
What sort of 'pension' would be issued to suppress a rebellion?
Not when you're up against the zero lower bound. We have continually been incapable of producing inflation even though it'd be the best way to resolve a lot of the debt overhang.
Should this happen, or begin to happen then the international owners of our debt will sell it all off further accelerating hyperinflation of the dollar with respect to other major currencies. This will be rapidly followed by the largest set of bank runs in history, effectively ending modern civilization over a short couple of years.
So it boils down to what exactly will be considered as "debt" then if the whole thing goes legalese.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Military and civilian civil service, mostly. I'd need to check, but I also think the U.S. decided to honor Confederate pensions, as well.
Not necessarily.
Provided that the treasury disposes of the coins once they can borrow again they shouldn't have much impact since they won't enter circulation. The US is perfectly able to borrow a LOT more than our current debt, that's not the issue, we're just not legally allowed to. This would basically be borrowing the money from ourselves (so as to not pass the debt ceiling).
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Pretty much. Essentially it grabs hold of monetary policy and pulls it back from the Fed to the White House, by slowly monetizing whatever amount of the debt that cannot be raised above the ceiling. The Fed still retains its mandate over price stability, though, and would have to try and pull money back in as the White House creates it. Regardless, it just means that as a political bludgeon the debt ceiling is finished; a failure to raise the ceiling just creates inflation "automatically" instead of spending cuts "automatically", as the teapers want.
Hah. I love this solution.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I shall try to do so more often.
No. It was done on the state level.
http://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/civil-war-genealogy-resources/confederate/pension.html
Laws say what courts say that they say.
You: The President should do this and this because of a law (the 14th amendment).
Me: The law doesn't say that.
You: Laws don't matter!
Either the law matters or it doesn't. You keep flipping back and forth between arguing that it applies and arguing that it doesn't matter whether it applies and then arguing that the fact that it doesn't matter that it applies actually means that it does apply.
So we buy the 172 billion dollar coins back when we can borrow again?
Actually there are already over a billion dollar coins just sitting in the vaults not being used. With more being printed because they are required to by congress. (old bill) So he can start with those.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
And now for a lesson in "how to read"
Sometimes, like this, we put clauses in between commas. The clause that is inbetween the commas can be taken entirely out of the sentence and it still makes sense. Notice how the sentence reads perfectly fine as "sometimes we put clauses in between commas"? That is because that is the sentence. The clause in the middle expands and clarifies. In this case, because we had just had a war and the legislature was afraid the south was going to try to fuck things up they said "especially these debts, you seriously can't fuck with these, don't even bother trying we put it in the actual wording so it would be as unambiguous as possible"
This is not a list. The 14th amendment protects the "public debt" which is all debt legally issued and all obligations that the government has accepted (for instance if the Govt accepts your labor for which it will pay you later, your salary is part of the public debt. Contracts the govt enters into etc).
By following one of those laws you violate the other, so wrong again!
It is a catch-22 where neither course is actually legal ...
Not exactly. It's more like burning a shitload of dollar bills (yall) once we can borrow again.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
You do realize that American courts do not govern the entire world? You do realize that this is about an issue of our debt integrity to the rest of the world? You do realize that the point of the 14th Amendment is to protect the integrity of American debt to the rest of the world?
This is how folly happens. The opinion of the American internal court system has as much validity on whether the world decides we are no longer a safe haven for investment as a German court ruling in 1944 that it was illegal to invade would have saved Hitler.
The above is a goose-ish paraphrasing of my exact argument from a few posts up.
We agree on exactly what you said - it is not a list, those are simply particularly important.
Sorry for my snarking on that, but we agree on that one single point.
Regardless of stipulations about what the President should or shouldn't do, would you at least agree that the 14th amendment implies that not raising the debt ceiling in this situation is unconstitutional?
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That still doesn't make it clear why a law that has as it's sole function making it impossible to pay that debt under certain circumstances doesn't run afoul of the 14th.
I think doing it more than once would destroy us.
A lot of people think doing it even once would destroy us.
So it's not exactly a perfect solution.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Let's try this a different way. You tell me what actions you want the president to take, and I'll tell you why the "opinion of the American internal court system" matters.
Let's really drive the tea party/paultards and have a yard sale at Ft. Knox.
"the integrity" of our debt refers to us paying it. It does not refer to the price we have to pay to issue new debt to the market.
So if you agreed with my point and could read what was going on why did you quote me and say "you are fucking wrong" in bold, italics, and underline?
I think he meant to refer to the latter portion:
As his point is that all our current debts are valid and must be honored because they do not relate to supporting rebellion (Libya probably doesn't count)
In short, you appear to be in agreement.
Or they might not and panic selling of U.S. Treasuries begins Tuesday.
Point is no one knows. We're being put in a global crisis of confidence over our ability to pay our debts by a runaway minority.* This is new ground for everyone.
The entire reason this is a big deal is that it's putting the integrity of our ability to repay debts into question on the global stage. You can't wish that away with a bunch of Supreme Court citations. World wasn't paying attention then. It is now.
* That's why it's in the news so much.
Yeah, I might not have been as careful with which quote I grabbed from your posts on that as I should have, but while I agree on this one point, I disagree with your other assertion that "public debt" has a limited definition. The only limit to what is considered public debt under the 14th Amendment is debt incurred for supporting rebellion and insurrection.
Literally everything else counts.