re: #61 Obdicut

pff, sorry it’s 2:17 AM here, looking up US case law for something like that is a bit too much of an enterprise now. the argument would fly to some extent at least here; I’ll look into US precedent (if I can find any) or literature on the subject as best as I can tomorrow/this weekend.

the federal government is obligated to pay those debts, that’s obvious. I agree there should be no dispute to that.
allowing the pres. to raise the debt ceiling however does much more than that! there’s a lot of expenses that can be made at the discretion of the executive branch, without consulting the legislature. both a budget *and* a debt ceiling are meant to confine that to reasonable limits, am I right?
now the idea of president Obama doing that, well, fine by me. the general idea of any president having that power, however, not so much. (just as untested, if I’m not mistaken) war powers act et al notwithstanding.

come to think of it, now if the administration would take your interpretation, I’d be all for that.
that is, stating the debt ceiling does not apply as interpreted up to this point.

hell, that whole debt ceiling thing is peculiar at least. I don’t know of a single European country working that way, for sure. then again, the balance of power here is divided in a rather different manner.

all I’m saying is, that debt ceiling is there for a reason. it’s a good idea, in principle.
now even very good legislation is usually vulnerable from one angle: too many crazies in the legislature.
if it wasn’t the debt ceiling, they’d use something else.
now your suggestion to not let paying standing debts be hampered by congress anymore, great!
if that gives the executive branch (same which would do the actual borrowing, mind you) the power to raise that debt ceiling when they feel like it, that would remove a safeguard which has, AFAIK, been taken for granted in the last, what? 150 or so years of legislation?

some lizard (I honestly can’t remember who) put it quite succinctly a while ago: now pres. Obama with that power, sure, we all trust him with that. but what if it were, say, I dunno, pres. Palin (G-d forbid!)?

sorry, I’m probably nitpicking all the way.
I just feel that sometimes, however great the problem faced, some rash solutions only make things worse.
that debt ceiling was meant as a means for congress to limit executive authority. it’s been embedded in the system for ages.

now how would you go about allowing the US to borrow above the current debt ceiling without raising it (I presume that’s your primary intent?) in a way that would keep the debt ceiling meaningful?

for example, what expenses should the gov. keep making and for which ones should the debt ceiling remain a fixed boundary?
and how would you go about setting a meaningful ceiling if suddenly, a lot of debt which has always fallen under the debt ceiling is suddenly in some other account, so to say?

and do you realize at least some of those things require congressional cooperation (something they’re not willing to do now, let alone after apocalypse has been averted by ignoring them flat out, which means they have no political reason, in their perverted little game, to cooperate anymore)?

now to avert a default in the short run, it’s a good idea. it does however create such a shitstorm of other problems that pretty much any other option would probably be a better one.

oh well, I’m really still hoping&praying it won’t come to that.