That's not looking at it differently - that's looking at it wrongly. Raising the debt ceiling does not allow the government to spend whatever it wants. Period. No, this is not correct. The borrowing limit is suspended with no strings. But Congress doesn't get paid unless each chamber passes a budget. Not a balanced budget plan - just any budget plan.
True, but the GOP will run nothing but Mexican Americans if needed to hang on to power. You can always get some folks to play ball with them. Look at the Mexican American guy on the TX S. Ct, whose wife burned the house down. He is a faithful servant of the 1%.
Very well. I'll explain my logic, and I would like for you to point out where my error is. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount that the US can borrow to fund government spending. If this limit were removed, the US would have the ability to borrow unlimited funds, and that would allow for unlimited spending.
No, it would only allow for unlimited spending in the event that there was a preexisting condition that congress had appropriated money on an unlimited basis. Congress does not appropriate money in that fashion. That prerequisite does not exist, ergo you are wrong.
Actually, I'm not. My argument had nothing to do with how Congress appropriates money. I was arguing that removing the debt ceiling allows for unlimited spending. And as per your scenario, it clearly does.
The debt ceiling has nothing to do with authorizing spending, it has to do with authorizing the creation of government debt. Congress passes bills that spend money and in that, their power is already "unlimited." The debt ceiling just limits how much the government can borrow to pay for spending which has already been authorized by Congress.
And little Bush hasn't even announced what he's running for. 2014 is what would set the plan in place for the Texas Dems. If they can't find a way to take down Perry now, I'm not sure there is hope for the party in this state. Just the thought that he could be in power for 18 years...I just got sick.
Your argument is entirely dependent on how Congress appropriates money, as it presupposes a situation of infinite appropriations. Your ignorance of how it does is it - not so much. But for the sake of r****dedly stupid argument, I could keep the debt ceiling and set it to infinity - surely the same Congress which passes an appropriations bill allowing for infinity spending would have no qualms about passing a bill setting the debt ceiling at infinity? OH NOES YOUR PRECIOUS DEBT CEILING JUST ALLOWED UNLIMITED SPENDING!
You stated: Obama wants the government to be able to spend as much as it wants, whenever it wants. Borrowing unlimited funds doesn't allow the government to spend unlimited funds. Only Congress can authorize that in a budget - and if they authorize the spending of those funds, they probably should authorize the borrowing to allow the spending of the funds they authorized. All Obama has asked is for Congress to authorize the government to borrow the funds that it already told the Executive Department that it's supposed to spend.
Borrowing unlimited funds does allow for the government to spend unlimited funds. "Allow" and "allow for" are not the same thing...
Here is the full article mentioned earlier...... Sounds to me like a lot of Dems want to have Texas on the table for 2020 or 2024 when Castro might run. And the same arguments the Repubs are making could have been said about the North Carolina of Jesse Helms, which is definitely a swing state these days.
This effort could be enough to get many in Texas who have disengaged (out of futility), involved again.
Republican party is in trouble...only reason they hold the house is because of gerrymandering. Let Obama destroy it and help it become something useful. Best case scenario is if the party splits into the far right wing and the center right, and then center left dems start to move towards the middle party.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, the government already has that ability by minting trillion dollar platinum coins. All the debt ceiling does is allow for the government to borrow unlimited funds. It can already print and spend funds if it wants to.
The debt ceiling isn't an impenetrable wall preventing Congress from spending unlimited funds. If Congress wanted to spend an unlimited amount of money, they could continually vote to raise the debt ceiling. I think the fact that Congress has voted to raise the ceiling something like 40 times the past 50 years (typically in landslides) ought to tell you how well the debt ceiling works at "reining in" government spending.
