Republicans discovering Obamacare saves them money »« Cruz led “Republicans into traffic and wandered away”

Comments

  1. Scr... Archivist says

    This morning it dawned on me that the Republicans might expect to gain from a default crisis. Could they be maneuvering the President into acting unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling, giving them an excuse to finally impeach him? Maybe that “silver lining” is one reason they’re less concerned about default than the rest of us.

    Think how much they could milk the impeachment process during the 2014 campaign. And if nothing else, impeachment (even without conviction) would put a serious stain on the legacy of a president they consider illegitimate. They could trumpet that for the rest of the century.

  2. Reginald Selkirk says

    the President into acting unilaterally to raise the debt ceiling

    And just how would he do that?

  3. tubi says

    I think a lot of them are seeing this, as much as stickin’ it to the coon in the White House, as a way of shrinking government overall. I know my Rep, Michele Bachmann, sees it that way. And I’ve had several conservative/Paulite friends on fb posit, rhetorically, if all these people are being furloughed because they are “non-essential,” then maybe we didn’t really need them in the first place?

  4. sawells says

    @2: The fourteenth amendment states that: “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.”

    Thus there’s an argument that, if Congress have failed to act so that a default threatens, then the executive must act because the constitution requires it; effectively, the constitution would be overriding the legislative provision that Congress sets the debt ceiling.

    I don’t think the Tea Party actually understand what the public debt is, let alone what a default on it means.

  5. Anthony K says

    And I’ve had several conservative/Paulite friends on fb posit, rhetorically, if all these people are being furloughed because they are “non-essential,” then maybe we didn’t really need them in the first place?

    Exactly. With regards to national parks and conservation areas, it’s absolutely obvious that we can trust private interests like Exxon and BP to look after them better than a bunch of lazy, taxpayer-teat-sucking ecologists.

  6. trucreep says

    @4 sawells

    That’s really interesting. Do you know if any one well-versed in that field has explored this??

  7. DonDueed says

    After going through the last three posts, I had a small epiphany.

    If I were the President, I would not give up the medical device tax or delay the employer mandate (again), unless the Republicans would give me one concession:

    Eliminate the debt ceiling permanently.

    The ceiling law is relatively recent and its purpose was to force Congess to pass a real budget. It has failed to do that, so it needs to be scrapped. Its only function now is to provide a recurring crisis of confidence in the “full faith and credit” of the United States, which is damaging to both the domestic and world economies.

    Get rid of it for good, and you can have your minor ACA tweaks.

  8. bryanfeir says

    @6 trucreep:
    Well, there’s Henry Aaron with Obama Should Ignore the Debt Ceiling.

    Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law — the only question is which one.

    The Constitution requires the president to spend what Congress has instructed him to spend, to raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and to borrow no more than Congress authorizes.

    If President Obama spends what the law orders him to spend and collects the taxes Congress has authorized him to collect, then he must borrow more than Congress has authorized him to borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he will have to violate one of these constitutional imperatives. Which should he choose?

    Seen via “The debt limit Kobayashi Maru” on Slacktivist.

  9. magistramarla says

    Tubi @ #3
    “I think a lot of them are seeing this, as much as stickin’ it to the coon in the White House, as a way of shrinking government overall. I know my Rep, Michele Bachmann, sees it that way. And I’ve had several conservative/Paulite friends on fb posit, rhetorically, if all these people are being furloughed because they are “non-essential,” then maybe we didn’t really need them in the first place?”

    I live in San Antonio, Tx, which is called “Military City, USA” Yet, I’m hearing the same comments here.
    There are people who literally make their livings from the money that is spent by Federal employees who are advocating that those hard-working people not be allowed to recoup lost pay or even be fired from their jobs. (full disclosure – one of them is my hubby)
    It’s really sickening.

    We have a major basic training base for the AF here, as well as the major medical center for the Army and both of those things would be difficult to move. However, I would LOVE to see all of the other functions of the military that are mostly maintained by civilian workers moved to a blue state which would probably provide better services for us and would appreciate the influx of jobs to their economy.

Leave a Reply