Biden Says He Has Authority to Challenge Debt Limit

[Into the Night]

There is enough revenue each month to pay for the interest on the debt and no reason to pretend that there isn't unless you are idiots like the 37% that still believe that it's republicans' fault that Biden refused to speak to Republicans about this for Months. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee timely payments, only recognition of one wars' worth of debt. This is nonsense. Nobody is questioning the debt, they are questioning the apportionment of funds that put us even further into debt. This is not an Amendment 14 issue, he knows it, we all know it, even BP knows it.

If Biden doesn't get the Senate to pick up and vote for the extension passed by Congress for the debt limit, then he would have to direct his Treasurer to pay the interest and, like Obama, he would have to close down portions of the government that he could not pay for. He has no right to take over Congressional duties and powers and he would lose in the SCOTUS.

There is no such thing as a 'debt limit'. Congress can borrow as much as they want anytime they want. There is, of course, a cost to issuing so much debt. The current debt is approaching $32 trillion.
That means to pay the debt off, each taxpayer would have to contribute $248,041 regardless of income. That ain't gonna happen.

Just the interest on all that debt the government has to pay for is $573 billion. It is now the 4th largest budget expense. Only the military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid have larger budgets.

Revenue from all taxes collected are only $4.6 trillion. The rest the government just 'prints' the money.

The result is inevitable. It's only a matter of time. It will be a cash crash.

 

[Into the Night]

It is bigger than that. If he allows Congress to determine his political agenda, then we have a Republican government. They are using the debt ceiling as a method of extortion. Biden has to stop it or the debt ceiling will determine our policies. The 14th does give him power. Why should Biden give in to extortion? It says "The validity of the debt of the US, shall not be questioned". Not paying what we owed is certainly doing that. here is the brain of the repub party explaining the debt ceiling.

The 14th amendment does not address the so-called 'debt ceiling'. There is no 'debt ceiling'.

 

[Into the Night]

You know no such thing. I like the Constitution. The 14th is in the constitution. Therefore you do not like it.
Yes the masses are swayed by sophistry. They are risking so much to "own" the Dems. Biden using a constitutional amendment to keep us from a potential financial disaster is not being a dictator. It is following the law.

You discard the Constitution. You deny it. Like you, Biden also denies and discards the Constitution. Biden does NOT follow the law either. Indeed, he has committed three acts of treason. I've already listed them.

 

[Into the Night]

The 14th use is a stretch, but if Biden wants to use it, he can. It has never been used for the debt. It is defensible. Daffy Donald would use it in a second.

Straw man fallacy.

 

[Lightbringer]

Maybe you ought to lay-off whatever you drink.

Black Tea?

 

[Flash]

[

Flash: "They did not have a 2/3 majority to override a veto."

Into the Night: "Blatant lie. Yes they did."

2017-2019

• 194 Democrats
• 241 Republicans

2019-2021

• 235 Democrats
• 199 Republicans

Work on your math. 2/3 of 435 is 291. They did not have a 2/3 majority.

 

[Nordberg]

[

2017-2019

• 194 Democrats
• 241 Republicans

2019-2021

• 235 Democrats
• 199 Republicans

Work on your math. 2/3 of 435 is 291. They did not have a 2/3 majority.

He will tell you math is left and a lie. He plays opposites and never backs down from his insane positions. He is a terrible poster.

 

[Flash]

The 14th amendment does not address the so-called 'debt ceiling'. There is no 'debt ceiling'.

Congress created a debt ceiling in 1917. They have control over spending and borrowing, remember?

 

[Into the Night]

[

2017-2019

• 194 Democrats
• 241 Republicans

2019-2021

• 235 Democrats
• 199 Republicans

Work on your math. 2/3 of 435 is 291. They did not have a 2/3 majority.

Yes they did. Why are listing the number of Democrats and Republicans?

 

[Into the Night]

He will tell you math is left and a lie. He plays opposites and never backs down from his insane positions. He is a terrible poster.

No math here. He is listing the number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress for a couple of different terms for some reason. That's all.

 

[Into the Night]

Congress created a debt ceiling in 1917. They have control over spending and borrowing, remember?

There is no such thing as a 'debt ceiling'.

 

[Flash]

Yes they did. Why are listing the number of Democrats and Republicans?

Because that determines the number of votes needed to override a veto. Members of a president's party seldom vote to override and neither party has had a 2/3 majority in recent years. Therefore, the chances of overriding a veto are very slim. That assumes we are talking about reality and not some unlikely impossibility.

 

[Flash]

There is no such thing as a 'debt ceiling'.

Yet, it continues to limit the amount of money the government can borrow. Things you claim do not exist have been governing this nation for many years.

You can claim there was "no election" in 2020; yet, it elected a president who is now serving his term. You can claim the federal courts have no authority to interpret the Constitution; yet, they have done so for 200+ years. You can claim there is no doctrine of incorporation; yet, we have been following that doctrine for many years. You can claim there was voter fraud in 2020; yet, nobody can find any. You can claim several states submitted no electoral votes in 2020; yet, the National Archives has the certified copies of those electors.

Try to deal in reality.

 

[Into the Night]

Because that determines the number of votes needed to override a veto.

No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with it. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Members of a president's party seldom vote to override

BULLSHIT!!!

and neither party has had a 2/3 majority in recent years. Therefore, the chances of overriding a veto are very slim. That assumes we are talking about reality and not some unlikely impossibility.

Random words and phrases. No apparent coherency. Try English.

 

[Flash]

No, it doesn't. That has nothing to do with it. Non-sequitur fallacy.

Of course it does. You need 2/3 of the vote of each house to override a veto. That means the president's party needs a substantial majority to have a chance.

Remember, we are talking reality and not some theoretically possible nonsense.

 

[Flash]

Flash: "Members of a president's party seldom vote to override"

Into the Night: BULLSHIT!!!

Give us an example of Congress overriding a president's veto that included a majority of his party voting to override.

Without using your typical "RQAA" diversion.

 

[Lightbringer]

I love watching fuckwits argue.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it does.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You need 2/3 of the vote of each house to override a veto. That means the president's party needs a substantial majority to have a chance.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Vote is not related to party, dumbass.

Remember, we are talking reality and not some theoretically possible nonsense.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'reality' means and how it's defined. It is NOT a proof. It is NOT a Universal Truth.

 

[Into the Night]

Give us an example of Congress overriding a president's veto that included a majority of his party voting to override.

Without using your typical "RQAA" diversion.

No need. That is not the discussion.

 

[Flash]

Flash: "You need 2/3 of the vote of each house to override a veto. That means the president's party needs a substantial majority to have a chance."

Into the Night: "Non-sequitur fallacy. Vote is not related to party, dumbass."

If you think congressional votes have no relationship to the party balance in each house you do not know enough to be in this discussion. Simply throwing out different types of fallacies is not a debate but irrelevant, repetitive rambling.