American Politics: The Speaker's Cornered

[San Lumen]

Another series of speaker votes that don't end in a speaker? That was pretty entertaining.

Or a speaker that has to rely on democrats for support

I doubt thats going to happen.

[Umeria]

If Biden invokes the 14th, the Supreme Court doesn't have any choice but to be friendly. They lose a lot more from the economy imploding than they do from the GOP not getting minor budget concessions.

Whether you're right or wrong, the fight undermines the goal. It will drag out until they get to decide. And if they roll those dice anyway and it doesn't come up their way, they blew their shot. At best now's not the time.

I mean you're not wrong, Biden's first mistake was not starting the fight several months ago.

[Umeria]

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

That's a sad excuse for a retort

The more important point is that the McConnell quote is not an answer to the question I asked.

[Thermodolia]

Or a speaker that has to rely on democrats for support

I doubt thats going to happen.

If he wants to stay as speaker he’s gonna need democrats to support him. There’s at least 30 republicans who will not support him anymore.

[San Lumen]

I doubt thats going to happen.

If he wants to stay as speaker he’s gonna need democrats to support him. There’s at least 30 republicans who will not support him anymore.

And why would Democrats support him?

[Shrillland]

If he wants to stay as speaker he’s gonna need democrats to support him. There’s at least 30 republicans who will not support him anymore.

And why would Democrats support him?

Because it's better to be junior partners in a Coalition than unable to do anything at all.

[Ostroeuropa]

In the event the debt ceiling is hit, because the interest on servicing debt does not exceed 100% of tax revenue, i'm pretty sure the legal obligation is clear and its to continue funding only revenue raising institutions and direct all funding to paying down the debt, with massive cuts to everything else. This was floated in 2011 and rejected as "Unrealistic" because it would require 40% cuts to government spending.

And yet, it would seem, that is the legal necessity if the debt ceiling is reached unless you want to default. I think arguing that the debt ceiling law can be circumvented by invoking the 14th to declare the law unconstitutional would require interest payments on debt to exceed 100% of tax revenue, which would de-facto mean that refusing to raise that ceiling would immediately provoke a default. However, that's probably the situation where defaulting becomes both inevitable and arguably desirable anyway.

So long as it isn't the case, the defence of "We are not questioning the debt that exists. We are refusing to allow Biden to accumulate more of it." is a pretty solid one.

[Tarsonis]

If he wants to stay as speaker he’s gonna need democrats to support him. There’s at least 30 republicans who will not support him anymore.

And why would Democrats support him?

Do you want Gaetz as speaker?

[Umeria]

In the event the debt ceiling is hit, because the interest on servicing debt does not exceed 100% of tax revenue, i'm pretty sure the legal obligation is clear and its to continue funding only revenue raising institutions and direct all funding to paying down the debt, with massive cuts to everything else. This was floated in 2011 and rejected as "Unrealistic" because it would require 40% cuts to government spending.

And yet, it would seem, that is the legal necessity if the debt ceiling is reached unless you want to default. I think arguing that the debt ceiling law can be circumvented by invoking the 14th to declare the law unconstitutional would require interest payments on debt to exceed 100% of tax revenue, which would de-facto mean that refusing to raise that ceiling would immediately provoke a default. However, that's probably the situation where defaulting becomes both inevitable and arguably desirable anyway.

So long as it isn't the case, the defence of "We are not questioning the debt that exists. We are refusing to allow Biden to accumulate more of it." is a pretty solid one.

How would the spending cuts happen? Biden can't do them unilaterally, that would be a line-item veto which is unconstitutional.

[Ostroeuropa]

In the event the debt ceiling is hit, because the interest on servicing debt does not exceed 100% of tax revenue, i'm pretty sure the legal obligation is clear and its to continue funding only revenue raising institutions and direct all funding to paying down the debt, with massive cuts to everything else. This was floated in 2011 and rejected as "Unrealistic" because it would require 40% cuts to government spending.

And yet, it would seem, that is the legal necessity if the debt ceiling is reached unless you want to default. I think arguing that the debt ceiling law can be circumvented by invoking the 14th to declare the law unconstitutional would require interest payments on debt to exceed 100% of tax revenue, which would de-facto mean that refusing to raise that ceiling would immediately provoke a default. However, that's probably the situation where defaulting becomes both inevitable and arguably desirable anyway.

So long as it isn't the case, the defence of "We are not questioning the debt that exists. We are refusing to allow Biden to accumulate more of it." is a pretty solid one.

How would the spending cuts happen? Biden can't do them unilaterally, that would be a line-item veto which is unconstitutional.

The irony is that the 14th would be his best bet. The same logic that allows him to declare the debt-ceiling law overturned by executive order (A logic which doesn't actually work), would in fact *compel* him to declare various other spending is unconstitutional, as it amounts to questioning the obligation to service the debt.

But realistically, the Republicans are already demanding those cuts be made. So just agree to it. The alternative is the Democrats destroy the global economy because they refuse to accept that lost the election to Republicans in congress, refuse to do their job, and keep thinking they can "Negotiate" rather than do their actual role of running the executive and leaving the separation of powers in place.

If they want to make it their job, let the ceiling be hit. Then it's an administrative/executive matter and Biden can decide to issue an order to cut spending wayyyyy in excess of what the Republicans demanded, or nuke the global economy and default (Which might be an unconstitutional action if he has alternatives).

[Umeria]

How would the spending cuts happen? Biden can't do them unilaterally, that would be a line-item veto which is unconstitutional.

The irony is that the 14th would be his best bet. The same logic that allows him to declare the debt-ceiling law overturned by executive order (A logic which doesn't actually work), would in fact *compel* him to declare various other spending is unconstitutional, as it amounts to questioning the obligation to service the debt.

There's also an obligation to spend. You're violating an obligation either way. Why is one action more legal than the other?

Re your edit: What the Reps proposed actually increases spending iirc so I'm not sure how agreeing to it helps at all

[Ostroeuropa]

The irony is that the 14th would be his best bet. The same logic that allows him to declare the debt-ceiling law overturned by executive order (A logic which doesn't actually work), would in fact *compel* him to declare various other spending is unconstitutional, as it amounts to questioning the obligation to service the debt.

There's also an obligation to spend. You're violating an obligation either way. Why is one action more legal than the other?

Which spending is obligatory? It's around 2/3rds obligatory, by the way. Not all of it.

If the final 1/3rd were pushed solely towards servicing the debt, you'd push the crisis back significantly. (About a 40% cut is required, but a 33% cut will suffice to give you a few years, and realistically the moment Biden walks on stage and says "We can't have any nice things anymore, because Republicans won't increase the debt ceiling", they'll give in. Especially as the military is not a mandatory expense... so going up there and saying "Yeah the army is abolished, go home guys" would be a hell of a moment).

[Umeria]

There's also an obligation to spend. You're violating an obligation either way. Why is one action more legal than the other?

Which spending is obligatory? It's around 2/3rds obligatory, by the way.

What do you mean? The whole thing is a congressionally mandated budget

[Ostroeuropa]

Which spending is obligatory? It's around 2/3rds obligatory, by the way.

What do you mean? The whole thing is a congressionally mandated budget

Right, but only some of it is required to be spent as a result of constitutional obligations. The rest is just the budget. Prioritizing debt servicing is his constitutional obligation if he doesn't get given the funds. It ultimately comes down to whether the president is allowed to spend money without congressional approval (He isn't). If they give him mixed instructions, that's not really approval. At which point the instructions he has to follow are the constitutionally ordered ones.

Like, what could he do if nobody was willing to loan the government money? He'd have to just not spend the money, right? And then he's got to prioritize, and he's obliged to prioritize debt repayment. It's similar here. Congress has forbidden him from borrowing money.

[Umeria]

What do you mean? The whole thing is a congressionally mandated budget

Right, but only some of it is required to be spent as a result of constitutional obligations. The rest is just the budget. Prioritizing debt servicing is his constitutional obligation if he doesn't get given the funds. It ultimately comes down to whether the president is allowed to spend money without congressional approval (He isn't). If they give him mixed instructions, that's not really approval. At which point the instructions he has to follow are the constitutionally ordered ones.

Like, what could he do if nobody was willing to loan the government money? He'd have to just not spend the money, right? And then he's got to prioritize, and he's obliged to prioritize debt repayment. It's similar here. Congress has forbidden him from borrowing money.

Spending "just the budget" is constitutionally obligated as well. Deciding not to implement certain parts of a law is a line-item veto, and the Supreme Court ruled that those are unconstitutional.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

In 2028 we will have attempted this neoliberal hypothesis of "cutting budgets and giving tax breaks to billionaires will lead to general welfare" for 47 years. Longer than the entire Cold War lasted. If people still think that this has been a resounding success for anybody but the billionaire class I have bridges to sell.

[Zurkerx]

The DOJ has an audio recording of Trump discussing classified document he took. Specifically, it is a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. He apparently wanted to show the document to the people in the room, but made aware his limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records. To make matters worse for Trump, none of the people in the room would had the clearance to view it. The recording occurred at Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey back in July of 2021, well before it was known he took classified information with him. And during the summer of 2021, people were making recordings of Trump as he held conversations with journalists and biographers, meaning there's a good chance he exposed additional secrets, possibly to people posing as spies (that is not mentioned in the article, but one can assume this probably happened).

And why show off this particular document? Trump was livid of a New Yorker Story that Milley instructed the Joint Chiefs to ensure Trump issued no illegal orders and that he be informed if there was any concern. Trump claimed that the document was produced by Milley, but it was in fact not.

That recording certainly undermines Trump's arguments.

[The Black Forrest]

Why should I listen to a former bush judicial appointee?

That's a sad excuse for a retort

Not elegant and yet to the point. Anybody under Mitch’s time with courts is of questionable nature. Even the guy mentioned as some rather interesting views on redefining liberalism to be a Christian liberalism. He is what Mitch wanted…..

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

the hell is Christian liberalism

[Eternal Algerstonia]

the hell is Christian liberalism

hereticism

[The Black Forrest]

The DOJ has an audio recording of Trump discussing classified document he took. Specifically, it is a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. He apparently wanted to show the document to the people in the room, but made aware his limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records. To make matters worse for Trump, none of the people in the room would had the clearance to view it. The recording occurred at Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey back in July of 2021, well before it was known he took classified information with him. And during the summer of 2021, people were making recordings of Trump as he held conversations with journalists and biographers, meaning there's a good chance he exposed additional secrets, possibly to people posing as spies (that is not mentioned in the article, but one can assume this probably happened).

And why show off this particular document? Trump was livid of a New Yorker Story that Milley instructed the Joint Chiefs to ensure Trump issued no illegal orders and that he be informed if there was any concern. Trump claimed that the document was produced by Milley, but it was in fact not.

That recording certainly undermines Trump's arguments.

Wow. I wish I would be surprised he is such a tool. If you are going to tell people without clearances you have documents about an attack on Iran; you might as well show them.

The more things like this which show up; if he walks away unscathed; the system is irredeemably broken.

[Thermodolia]

If he wants to stay as speaker he’s gonna need democrats to support him. There’s at least 30 republicans who will not support him anymore.

And why would Democrats support him?

In exchange for supporting him Dems get to extract some concessions and some committee spots. It also means that every time McCarthy goes and says anything the democrats don’t like they can threaten his speakership

And why would Democrats support him?

Because it's better to be junior partners in a Coalition than unable to do anything at all.

Honestly I’d argue that the McCarthy supporting GOP would be the junior partner

[Thermodolia]

That's a sad excuse for a retort

Not elegant and yet to the point. Anybody under Mitch’s time with courts is of questionable nature. Even the guy mentioned as some rather interesting views on redefining liberalism to be a Christian liberalism. He is what Mitch wanted…..

When the topic is how the judges that where appointed when Mitch was majority leader will vote, his opinion is fairly relevant. Given that he’s cut from the same cloth.

[The Black Forrest]

Not elegant and yet to the point. Anybody under Mitch’s time with courts is of questionable nature. Even the guy mentioned as some rather interesting views on redefining liberalism to be a Christian liberalism. He is what Mitch wanted…..

When the topic is how the judges that where appointed when Mitch was majority leader will vote, his opinion is fairly relevant. Given that he’s cut from the same cloth.

When said judges are presented as evidence to some comment? Their paste opinions come into play. There is something wrong when you have a judge who has basically decided before arguments begin.

[Zurkerx]

The DOJ has an audio recording of Trump discussing classified document he took. Specifically, it is a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. He apparently wanted to show the document to the people in the room, but made aware his limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records. To make matters worse for Trump, none of the people in the room would had the clearance to view it. The recording occurred at Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey back in July of 2021, well before it was known he took classified information with him. And during the summer of 2021, people were making recordings of Trump as he held conversations with journalists and biographers, meaning there's a good chance he exposed additional secrets, possibly to people posing as spies (that is not mentioned in the article, but one can assume this probably happened).

And why show off this particular document? Trump was livid of a New Yorker Story that Milley instructed the Joint Chiefs to ensure Trump issued no illegal orders and that he be informed if there was any concern. Trump claimed that the document was produced by Milley, but it was in fact not.

That recording certainly undermines Trump's arguments.

Wow. I wish I would be surprised he is such a tool. If you are going to tell people without clearances you have documents about an attack on Iran; you might as well show them.

The more things like this which show up; if he walks away unscathed; the system is irredeemably broken.

I mean, something like this was bound to come out so it's not surprising. But yeah, if he isn't charged due to what we know, then the system is broken - and I fear if Trump does return to the White House that his idea of "fixing" it would be to basically turn it into a system that goes after his enemies.