Eric Cantor vs John Boehner on Debt Negotiations

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Eric Cantor vs John Boehner on Debt Negotiations

Displaying all 6 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-07-14 02:08 PM

Kosko
Portland, TX
Posts: 1018

So what does everyone think about the dynamic between Eric Cantor vs John Boehner? I think there is going to be a real rift there. I am not a big fan of Cantor and if you look at his past this fits his personality to play politics and look after himself. I think he is undermining Boehner to improve his statue with his base and the tea party.

Thoughts?

2011-07-14 05:59 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Well both of them have a Tea Party-problem. In the end, they are converts to the Tea Party-movement, having both voted for TARP.
They are not insurgents themselves.....they are wave-riders....who have said and done what has proven necessary to gain Tea Party support and avoid becoming one of its targets.

Boehner's waving of Don't Tread on Me from a second floor balcony of the Capitol dome during the near riots over the passage of Obama's healthcare reform has proven endearing to the Tea Party base. While there's a lot that hardcore rightwingers may have to complain about with respect to his leadership....most of it just adds up to their own insanity, and if their willing to cannibalize Boehner, there will not be a Republican Party by the end of this generation.

Cantor is a young fast rising Conservative Star...He's obviously an annoying little punk. But there's no reason why we should not just as equally assume that the supposed "Boehner v. Cantor rift" is all part of a good cop/bad cop negotiating routine.

Republicans are going to take this to the limit....and either force Obama to invoke the 14th or capitulate on spending cuts, taxes, and the size of the ceiling increase, in-order to prevent default.

Ultimately, I believe that the government cannot default because of Sec 4 of 14th amendment, and the President is well within his rights (as Head of State, Chief Executive, and Commander-in-Chief) to liquidate the debt-ceiling in so far as it threatens the "validity of public debt." And legally speaking "intergovernmental debt" (ie SS Trust Funds) is a matter of public debt, be that as it may that benefit payouts are not guaranteed. Congress authorizes spending, taxation, and bond sales. Thus Congress targets deficits....and the ceiling is there to prevent Treasury from straying too far from the plan.

Yet, Congress already has the power to demand reports from the Treasury with respect to its accounting. It cannot set up a Congressional procedural vote that has the power to ultimately fail and push the government into default. Constitutionally, the government cannot default, and there's no operational reason for it to have to default -- only laws which demand that the Treasury issue bonds to "cover" its deficit expenditures, and a debt-ceiling that requires a seperate authorization from the budgets that have targeted/produced deficits.

We can have a debt-ceiling and Congress can vote on the matter, but the federal government cannot default. Ultimately, the President has the power to raise the debt-ceiling if Congress fails to raise it, despite having authorized a budget that targets a deficit that exceeds the debt-limit. Basically, by authorizing spending which exceeds tax collections, Congress has already constitutionally raised the debt limit by the amount that the annual deficit exceeds the debt-limit. If it fails to raise it....all this means is that annual budget deficits would be concurrent with debt-ceiling increases. In order words, the debt-ceiling rises if approved spending exceeds approved tax collections in excess of the ceiling limit.

You cannot tell the Treasury to do one thing, and then fail to deliver final authority by resetting debt-limits. Congress has the power to regulate Treasury but it cannot hamstring Executive branch power to the point in which the choices are violating the Constitution, or ignoring Congress. Congress can not order Executive branch agencies to commit unconstitutional acts, not without a declaration of martial law, war, emergency, or compelling state-interest. And besides violating COTUS, defaulting on the debt is likely to cause all of the aforementioned craziness. By God, we're now talking about National Security.

We cannot pay our debts as they come due by cutting spending....and expect revenues to be able to keep the system afloat. Imbalances in reciepts and payments will topple the system.

Without a debt-ceiling raise, the government must operate a surplus budget moving forward, in order to pay maturing bonds as they come due and in order to lower the national debt limit, so as to allow new bond issuance. The problem is that government reciepts and payments are wavy, and the necessary spending cuts cannot be made in order to run a surplus that's capable of paying down the national debt as it comes due, once we've hit the debt-limit. In order for the Republican no ceiling raise/no default plan to work, spending needs to be impounded by the Chief Executive before hitting the debt-limit*, and it is ridiculous to ask Treasury to forecast not only when the debt-limit will be hit, but when or if Congress will pass a ceiling raise. *Cutting government spending also lowers tax revenues collected, which adds another challenging dynamic to the quest for collecting surpluses.

2011-07-16 07:18 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Kaboom, as usual you have educated us on some of the finer points of the debt ceiling debate. You make an excellent point here:

"Basically, by authorizing spending which exceeds tax collections, Congress has already constitutionally raised the debt limit by the amount that the annual deficit exceeds the debt-limit. If it fails to raise it....all this means is that annual budget deficits would be concurrent with debt-ceiling increases. In order words, the debt-ceiling rises if approved spending exceeds approved tax collections in excess of the ceiling limit."

Obama would have a sound argument if he used his executive powers to act if Congress didn't. This, of course, would raise all kinds of constitutional questions amongst Tea Partiers who would then call for Obama's impeachment.

But for the Koch brothers funded and manipulated Tea Partiers, it is not so much about the debt ceiling as it is to make Obama look bad. These guys in their misguided ignorance and hate, WANT the government to default so they can use their Rupert Murdoch spin machine (Fox News) to place the fault on Obama. They'll do anything to make this happen. If Obama capitulated entirely on revenues, they would come back and ask for even more spending cuts. For them there is NO DEAL on the debt ceiling that would be acceptable. It's all a charade. They hate Obama and that's what drives them...hate blocks out all rational thought and critical thinking. People like Eric Cantor are just stooges in the bigger game being played out by the plutocrats that are yanking their chains. That's my opinion.

Now read Paul Krugman's July 14th New York Times article, Getting to Crazy. Commentators ask: “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” Krugman answers the question. "Why, yes, it has."

Rather than placing the blame entirely on the Tea Party, Krugman asserts that "it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades....the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office."

As we all know from the past voting records of Republican members of Congress including Boehner and Cantor, the debt ceiling debate is another manufactured issue to distract voters from the bigger issue of jobs. Republicans have ALWAYS supported raising the debt ceiling...every single time it has come time to do so. It has NEVER been an issue with them until now...their voting record supports that. It's just another example of their hypocrisy and never ending attempts to undermine the Presidency of Barack Obama, no matter how their actions hurt the country...it's party first.

2011-07-16 10:38 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Thanks Schmidt.

Poor Obama. He's got the toughest job in the world and the most on any president's plate since FDR, and his vote against raising the debt-ceiling as a Senator has come around to really bite him on the ass.

I'd say....getting the Republicans to agree to a deal that pushes cuts out of the immediacy and avoids a constitutional showdown is, politically, probably a better way of resolving the crisis then by invoking the 14th. It just might not be possible.

We got to get debt & deficits off of the front page. It's sucking the life out of everything.
Now I don't know where Obama stands. He's gone Dark. He's completely disconnected from the base of the Democratic Party.

A "Grand Bargain" on spending cuts to raise taxes on the rich is not consistent with the values that I believe in, but the fact that the Republicans rejected it......only demonstrates their depravity on a whole new level.

By detaching himself from the liberal/progressive base, with an offer to Republicans that most Democrats find horrifying, Obama has positioned himself well to embarass and shame the Republicans in front of moderates, centrists, and independents. By far, the President has offered the largest deficit reduction deal. David Brooks declared the Republicans "insane" for rejecting it.

But I believe this is a dangerous dance.....I believe passage of the "Grand Bargain" would be tantamount to ideological suicide for both Democrats and Republicans, sinking the party system as we know it, even as it might satisfy moderates, centrists, & independents.
I think the Republicans faced two bad political choices with the "Grand Bargain": raising taxes (horrifying to their base), or exposing the insanity that their base loves (which horrifies everyone else); and as professional politicians logically should, they chose the latter. It's better RED than DEAD.

In the end, I hope and think it's possible that Obama knew they would reject it.

I think he would like to get a small deficit deal done in favor of raising the debt limit to alleviate some of the fears implanted in the American people, but ultimately something that pushes cuts out of the immediacy and into project deficits. Yet, some of the cuts outlined by the Administration in the smaller deals goes too far in my opinion. Specifically, cuts to Medicare spending on doctor training & organ transplants. WTF?

As an MMT-Deficit Owl, and one of the "Last Progressives Left Standing," I favor increased government spending, a larger deficit, tax increases on the wealthy, and tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Obviously, I'm in the minority.
I'm all for spending reforms which produce savings, so long as they are put to new spending on education, healthcare, infrastructure, support for US states, relief for underwater homeowners, & jobs programs. And none of this is going to happen so long as the GOP is in control of the HOUSE.

So I sympathize with Obama's position. I don't like smoke and mirror politics. But this is the real world. And the only way to prevent steep cuts in the immediacy is to somehow control the debate, and get Republicans to accept longer-term deficit reduction approaches.

Obama does not want to be forced to invoke the 14th amendment, and then have to turn around and negotiate with these same asshole Republicans on next year's budget. He would prefer some sort of compromise on the debt-limit that leads to a budget deal.
Secondly, it would appear wise to wait until the last hour to invoke the 14th, if it comes to that, leaving Obama with the argument that he had no choice.

In the end, I would prefer a government-shutdown showdown on next year's budget then to have to agree to the terms of even smaller scale Republican demands for raising the debt-limit (which may not even avoid a shutdown showdown). I think Obama is positioned well to invoke the 14th, and I hope it comes to that.

El-p & Nocando- "Time Won't Tell"

2011-07-16 02:10 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Now....the 14th Amendment is a tough sell, especially without spending cuts. So it doesn't necessarilly get us to a better fiscal position than going the legislative route. And it's not like Obama can break openly for MMT after invoking the 14th....he's said government is broke & he's offered huge cuts. Republicans will demand them in the budget debate & will cause a government shutdown crisis to get them.

And you know, Obama is not the Supreme Court. Whatever we think the law says, what matters is what the Court system interprets. And one might expect Conservatives to appeal to the Justice system to attempt to force Obama to allow default in absence of congressional authorization to raise the debt-limit.

So for Obama, raising the debt-limit by presidential fiat is a really hard sell, even with some form of spending cuts.
Secondly, Libya, DOMA, drones, and civil liberties play a role in this. Which is why Republicans might try to force the 14th amendment on Obama, thus, avoiding default for the nation, while still getting to blame Obama "the dictator"for the outcome.

This is why Sen. Reid's busy at working attaching Biden plan-like cuts to the McConnell plan. We get the debt-ceiling raise at the last second, Republicans get to hide behind smoke and mirrors, and there's some cuts to grease passage of the bill.

It might work, but the Republicans are also demanding balance budget laws and a BB Constitutional amendment; and the two sides are not likely to agree on BB laws & amendments with taxes off the table.

And it's also bad law, and bad precedent for the debt-ceiling debate in the future. I think if Obama is forced to invoke the 14th Amendment, Americans will blame Republicans, who they will also blame for a government shutdown over the budget.

I think the president has got to lay out a longer-term plan and lay out a credible case for the two-eyed Keynesianism that he appears to believe in, while also explaining the distributive effects of government spending, and the role of taxation in servicing the redistribution of societal resources to broaden the spectrum of advanced 21st Century Capitalism and maintain our quality of life. He needs to show the American people that he's a real deficit hawk....and the only way to cut the national debt is to deficit spend now and into the foreseable future. And in doing this, he needs to ask Conservatives/Libertarians/Republicans to rexamine their beliefs.

"Deep Space 9mm ya'll, keep smiling"- El producto

2011-07-16 09:46 PM

BeaK
Newburgh, NY
Posts: 3

Sigh, the political game-playing and lack of problem-solving shames us as a nation. In one of the other forums, or perhaps in reaction to a Krugman article, a veteran eloquently states how in every crisis we all had to come together and work together. This little low-tech granny has posted an on-line petition calling the bluff on the game playing. Can we get a few more signatures? We have just changed to a more responsive site:

http://signon.org/sign/moving-the-debt-debate?source=c.fwd&r_by=403424

I also made both a g+ and facebook (AmericansMovingtheDebtDebate) little site with links to articles by Galbraith, global standing of the US in equitable income distribution and well-being and more. We have to think of our grandchildren and not just the next election. Did we hire these congresspersons to behave like children playing with matches?

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES