Comments on: The budget is its own ‘debt ceiling’ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: OneOfTheSheep Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:45:33 +0000 @LizR,

Perhaps, just for you, Reuters could post a digest of it’s news comments and comments on Twitter?

By: OneOfTheSheep Sat, 12 Oct 2013 06:42:17 +0000 @NoYouWillNot,

If I believed you credible I would ask you to be specific as to my “blatant falsehoods”.

I hate no one. Yes, I scorn those who refuse to think for themselves. I make as many conservatives angry with my views on abortion and the unaccountability each of us encounter daily from BOTH our government and large businesses.

Quite frankly I do not think this country will exist in the form we now know it in three decades. People who think as you do, if that can be called thinking, strongly suggest by their very existence, that Darwin may have read the tea leaves backwards. The theory is looking more and more plausible that somehow man sprung forth on this earth at the absolute pinnacle of his perfection and today he is well along a journey to become pond scum.

By: RmanB17499 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:16:26 +0000 Of course, what’s forgotten is that since the Continuing Resolution expired with the end of the fiscal year, there is no budget appropriated. Congress, at this point, has set non-mandatory, non-essential spending to -0-.

In addition, since no Congress can bind another Congress, it takes “currency.” The newer 2013 Congressional resolution (authorizing additional debt or denying additional debt) would counterweigh anything from 1974.

By: limolib Fri, 11 Oct 2013 17:35:00 +0000 OneofTheSheep, take a lap

By: NoYouWillNot Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:56:07 +0000 You put so much heat into that post, so little light. You filled it with blatant falsehoods, to enhance a position that has only one point of view, one goal. The hilarity of it all is that your entire nihilistic, anti-government movement was invented by people who were groping for a winning political strategy. The body of this slapped-together ideology is almost entirely composed of spin. And they are laughing at you for wallowing in their waste. Congratulations! Your political discourse has devolved into frothing hatred, and any justification it has is backwards-engineered. You are welcome to return to reality at any time.

I keep hearing otherwise good, bright people say ridiculous things they absorbed from the soulless Tea Party machine. This morning on the radio, a woman was interviewed about the government shutdown. She said it was worthwhile, because Obamacare had to be stopped. Why? Because “government shouldn’t be involved in healthcare.”

Which, of course, means the FDA and CDC and NIH and whatnot have no right to exist. And, obviously, she will not mind government being involved in healthcare when she goes on Medicare. Then, she’ll bitch about inadequate benefits and the cost of the gap.

The people who are furious over these issues never have a shred of intelligent analysis to bring. They parrot the often-contradictory, daily-changing talking points that the strategists feed to talk radio and Fox News, which feed the parrots.

You are capable of thought. You have to get the blind hate and blind, unquestioning absorption of propaganda out of your life first. Then maybe you will have something worth adding here.

By: LizR Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:40:31 +0000 Now I understand why the NYT limits posts to 1500 characters.

By: OneOfTheSheep Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:00:41 +0000 Another steaming heap of fresh bovine scat. Such emotional propaganda utterly devoid of rational thought would doubtless have made Goebbles proud!

The “secondary decision rules” can and certainly should be taken into account, but here messers Alpert and Hockett use their facts as a drunk uses a streetlight…for support and not illumination. They have chosen to presume that the the 1917 “debt ceiling” regime and the 1974 exercise of “Congress’s larger role in the budgeting, spending, taxing and borrowing process” are equally “constitutional”. This is obviously wrong.

Such presumption is clearly contrary to the very purpose of our federal government. The power of our federal government is directly derived from “we, the people”, who live in a place called “reality”. “We, the people” have never possessed the power to suspend financial reality, so such authority as is today claimed by Congress MUST be questioned by any and all reasoning Americans.

I would further question from whence arises the authority of our leaders to ignore the solemn oaths they took before assuming office? When they act incompetently, irresponsibly, or maliciously, is not such obvious misuse of official or agency power, by definition, contrary to the “best interests” of “We, the people”?

Our government of today is an ugly, bloated malignancy whose primary goal is growth. When it serves itself first from available revenue, leaving genuine needs such as maintaining America’s infrastructure unmet, we should experience horror, shame and fear; in that order.

Each and every so-called “leader” even remotely responsible should long ago have been stripped of office and thrown out of OUR government in disgrace. In this we have failed spectacularly in our duty to ourselves and our progeny to preserve the rich and unparalleled legacy inherited from our forefathers.

America’s leaders, by 1917, had run out of the common sense necessary to not spend more money than they had. They instead sought to assure the financial solvency of the nation from that time forward. They intentionally limited, generally by statute and specifically by periodic consensus, that amount in excess of available revenue Congress could spend. Nothing arbitrary or ambiguous there as to their intent.

While not a “balanced budget” remedy, it recognized the insanity of NO limit, and thus provided a workable method with which Congress’ irresistable tendency to OVERSPEND could be reasonably restrained. This was logical, appropriate, good for the country in both long and short term, and worked for a half century without meaninngful challenge or question of constitutionality.

Fast forward to America’s “leaders” in 1974. Tired of fiscal constraints on legislative hopes and dreams they KNEW America could not then afford, they sought a way around the wisdom of 1917. They created a budgetary construct of “spending commitments” that would, without specific action or accountability by anyone, create virtually unlimited “national debt”.

They wove their spend and spend tendencies into a web that would maintain our government on any course and momentum of choice with NO ONE accountable at the wheel! We don’t let railroads run their trains this way because of the obvious threat to the public as well as to the hardware and their own liability.

But today our “leaders” are much more concerned with their own re-election, again and again. The safety and well being of ordinary Americans is no longer on their priority list. They scheme and connive to keep “we, the people” at each other’s throats so we will not know them for what they are and rid ourselves of them.

Today’s heirs and dependents of political reprobates would claim the 1917 legislation “unconstitutional” because they have now perfected the illusion of a “perpetual money machine”. The “money is not gold bars cast or precious metal coins minted, but mere paper and ink printed without meaningful restraint or consideration of ultimate effect on our fiat currency.

Their fiscal “never never” land now runs up against the shoals of the 1917 Debt Limit. The battle line between fiscal responsibility and irresponsibility they obscure as best they can. Let’s see the hands raised of all those Americans who are FOR fiscal irresponsibility FOREVER by today’s federal government. No hands? I thought not, for those in favor of such would obviously be fools.

So it would seem that the “absurd result” canon would support the 1917 legislation, being both responsible and good for the country in the long term. The 1974 construct, over time, will obviously place the fiscal viability of these United States in grave peril; and the value of it’s currency in ever-increasing doubt.

The “last in time rule”, taken literally and alone, would mandate that the word of an idiot supersede and override the words of a genius if the idiot speaks last. Everyone would want “the last word” if that is all that counts. Such could only result in legislative chaos. So common sense dictates “wheat” (meriterious argument) be separated from “chaff” (diliatory argument of no merit) such that debate and due consideration be reserved to legitimate issues.

The 1974 construct is clearly absurd, bad for the country and it’s citizens, idiotic in fundamental concept with NO redeeming characteristics. It is so clearly “chaff” that serious consideration is futile. It is so incredible in concept as to be unconstitutional as defined by the unsavory results of it’s operation and effect. There is no meaningful conflict to resolve between a long established and necessary statute of merit and long standing and a fiscal absurdity of more recent origin.

As to the “specific trumps the general” rule, I would say that the DUTY of the government here is VERY specific. Do NOT spend irresponsible, do NOT debase our dollar, do NOT pledge the present AND the future of this country to buy votes that keep reprobates who have long forgotten their oaths to “we, the people” in power.

Many of the so-called “required” expenditures, taxings and borrowings “painstakingly detailed” in any Congressional budget are discretyionary and NOT mandatory, or “required”. Repeating a lie enough times may make a majority of people believe it the truth. It does not, however, MAKE IT TRUTH! Big difference.

The point at issue is NOT some “inconsistent requirement that borrowing in aggregate not exceed some arbitrarily selected amount”. Any inconsistency is merely that the AMOUNT of excess spending keeps increasing hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month. It is “cross the line” EXCESS SPENDING that must stop. The amount, once over the line, is of no lasting consequence.

The requirement NOT TO EXCEED is obviously consistent with fiscal sustainability. This is a non-argument, false and misleading on it’s very face. When you say: “Requiring the president to rewrite the budget’s expenditure or taxation provisions would…do…violence to congressional budget prerogatives…”. Oh, so it’s “violence” when prudent minds insist Congress and America live within it’s means, thus ASSURING that America’s JUST debts be unquestioned and timely paid IN THE LONG RUN? Please.

The ultimate default will be when America’s financial strength is hollowed out from within such that it ultimately collapses in upon itself when incapable of standing any longer. Who then will still believe U.S. government obligations were “risk-free” indebtedness when the world economy lies in ruins?

“Yes, our court should accordingly “reconcile” the two incompatible requirements in favor of that which does not lead to such unjust and catastrophic ultimate default!

By: 2Borknot2B Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:25:57 +0000 The debt is not risk free to actual American citizens, only to the gambling casino banks. G-Zero awaits, Israel, Saudi and China are chomping at the bit.