Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:39 PM Jan 2013

Can Obama refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling?

from what we've been hearing ever since early 2011, failure to raise the debt ceiling will have worldwide consequences.

It is very fair to say that the GOP is willing to risk those consequences if they don't get what they want, which is spending cuts.

Obama has said he won't negotiate, but is that his choice? Does he have to negotiate with the GOP to save the global economy? The GOP is saying no, he doesn't have that choice. That's how they're wording it. Are they right?

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can Obama refuse to negotiate over the debt ceiling? (Original Post) Enrique Jan 2013 OP
There is some speculation there are ways around the debt ceiling... PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #1
He can pay them back with their own coin; a trillion dollar coin. Xipe Totec Jan 2013 #2
What a symbol that would be... Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #12
The problem with that is most everyone will begin to think the nation is a farce davidn3600 Jan 2013 #18
It is for Congress to come up with something to put on the President's desk Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #3
If they do nothing, the executive branch grinds to a halt ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #5
Then it grinds to a halt Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #7
what about the consequences? Enrique Jan 2013 #8
How long are you willing to keep putting up with the republicans being terrorists?? Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #15
Not sure either side wants brinksmanship ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #4
The Tea-nuts love brinksmanship because it gets attention to their cause. amandabeech Jan 2013 #11
there are a few possible options as i see it: unblock Jan 2013 #6
The coin should have Ronald Reagan's face in it. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #14
++ unblock Jan 2013 #16
The statute about platinum coins gives the Treasury Secretary wide latitude RomneyLies Jan 2013 #19
There is only one face that should appear on the trillion dollar coin Hugabear Jan 2013 #24
14.4 Yes he can refuse to have the country held hostage.... wandy Jan 2013 #9
This administration has already acknowledged the legitimacy ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #10
This is not a new interpretation...... wandy Jan 2013 #21
this lets treasury pay existing debt, but doesn't let treasury issue new debt. unblock Jan 2013 #17
Agreed. At the moment paying existing debt is called for.... wandy Jan 2013 #20
but soon enough we get to the point where we need to issue more debt unblock Jan 2013 #22
Agreed again, long term.... wandy Jan 2013 #23
the trillion-dollar coin idea seems safer and more legally sound unblock Jan 2013 #25
Not bad. I'm just not so sure about legally sound..... wandy Jan 2013 #26
Sure he can. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #13

Xipe Totec

(43,890 posts)
2. He can pay them back with their own coin; a trillion dollar coin.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:43 PM
Jan 2013

If the Republicans in Congress are really irresponsible and outrageous enough to hold the reputation and economy of the United States of America hostage just to win a few re-election points, then perhaps the appropriate response is for the Treasury to save the country by minting a "trillion-dollar coin."

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
18. The problem with that is most everyone will begin to think the nation is a farce
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:31 PM
Jan 2013

And that the dollar has no real value.

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
7. Then it grinds to a halt
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:01 PM
Jan 2013

Congress needs to start earning their money
they need to start getting things done
Congress has the job to debate and pass bills ........
The President has stated what he wants

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
8. what about the consequences?
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
Jan 2013

can he just let that happen, and then say it's the GOP's fault. Or is he obligated to step in and prevent that from happening?

Angry Dragon

(36,693 posts)
15. How long are you willing to keep putting up with the republicans being terrorists??
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:22 PM
Jan 2013

It has to stop .......
Every time the democrats give more and more to these terrorists and it puts the country further into a third world country ......

For myself I am getting tired of it and it is past the time to let the country see the republicans for what they are ........... either they are terrorists or Satan's minions ........... or they could be both

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
4. Not sure either side wants brinksmanship
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:46 PM
Jan 2013

But the current law will force a shutdown/slowdown if there is no agreement. Some agreement with be forged and both sides will claim victory

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
11. The Tea-nuts love brinksmanship because it gets attention to their cause.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:17 PM
Jan 2013

The way Boehner got around this was to dump the Hastert rule requiring that any legislation presented to the House by a Republican must pass the Republican caucus.

If Boehner will continue to operate in this manner, and I'm not sure if he will, then there will be a deal or deals.

Otherwise, I'm thinking that the teanutters will cause problems, even though there are probably fewer of them for this term of the House.

unblock

(52,221 posts)
6. there are a few possible options as i see it:
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:51 PM
Jan 2013

1) come to SOME agreement that raises the debt limit.
2) convince to media that republicans are the jerks here and force them to cave.
3) invoke the 14th amendment -- untested, and i think it's a temporary remedy at best. republicans can always force the issue when the annual appropriations bill come up.
4) mint a trillion-dollar coin. untested, but i'm not sure it wouldn't work. the right-wing will howl the government is "printing money" ("minting money" would be more accurate and also alliterative, but it hasn't been imbued with the negative connotations that "printing money" has) but it's kinda funny money anyway and as obama says, congress authorized this spending in the first place.
5) selectively default on certain government obligations. i think the social security trust fund offers that possibility because they get issued a special series of treasuries, so a default on those wouldn't affect anyone else, and treasury would make social security whole once the situation is resolved. but, ... ugh!

 

RomneyLies

(3,333 posts)
19. The statute about platinum coins gives the Treasury Secretary wide latitude
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:34 PM
Jan 2013

as regards design, size, denomination, etc.



And the only other statute that must be obeyed is no coin can depict the face of any living person, so Reagan fits aptly.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
24. There is only one face that should appear on the trillion dollar coin
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:26 PM
Jan 2013


Sorry, had to let the nerd in me slip out.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
9. 14.4 Yes he can refuse to have the country held hostage....
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
Jan 2013

The Fourteenth Amendment

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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Most assuredly the Teapublicans will raise all unholy hell. I wonder if he could even defend it's use.
But what the hell, a good portion of our red footed friends have other problems with the 14th amendment.

Bring it on. It's well past time to challenge the corporate owned, self diluted Teapublican party and their brain dead Astroturf drunken followers.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
10. This administration has already acknowledged the legitimacy
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:17 PM
Jan 2013

of the debt limit.

Risking government stability on a new interpretation of the 14th amendment is somewhere between unwise and foolhardy. Obama is neither.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
21. This is not a new interpretation......
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:46 PM
Jan 2013

Their was justifiable fear that the repatriated confederate states would renege on US commitments.
Now their is justifiable fear that a group of corporate owned lapdogs will renege on US commitments.
Defaulting on loan commitments was every bit as bad when the 14th amendment was written as it is now.
People with poor credit ratings have a hard time getting loans.

unblock

(52,221 posts)
17. this lets treasury pay existing debt, but doesn't let treasury issue new debt.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:24 PM
Jan 2013

so i don't see it as doing more than buying perhaps a month or two.

in any event it certainly doesn't get us past the annual appropriations drama.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
20. Agreed. At the moment paying existing debt is called for....
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
Jan 2013

The use of 14.4 will send a powerful message.
President Obama (and a good number of the American people) will no longer negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers.
Should have been done long ago.

unblock

(52,221 posts)
22. but soon enough we get to the point where we need to issue more debt
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:46 PM
Jan 2013

and then we're back to square one in terms of negotiating with the hostage takers.

so i don't see this as reasonably helping the situation.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
23. Agreed again, long term....
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:21 PM
Jan 2013

In any hostage situation, initially the hostage takers have the upper hand.
The trick is to deny them that.
Short of giving away the farm (social safety net, corporate free rides and the like) the republicans have proven unwilling to negotiate.
Poorly planned excessive use of force will have the undesirable effect of also killing the hostages.
The republicans may see the use of 14.4 as if the building were surrounded by armed police and lunch is going to be a little late.
You're right, not the long solution at all.
Got any better ideas?

unblock

(52,221 posts)
25. the trillion-dollar coin idea seems safer and more legally sound
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:58 PM
Jan 2013

at the end of the day, they can always dig their heels in on the annual appropriations bills.

but that's less of a hostage situation unless they want to do a government shutdown thing. that didn't work out too well for newtie.

in truth, this is a political problem and politics is the only real answer. if republicans appear to be standing strong to do the right thing, they win. if republicans appear to be threatening to destroy america for the sake of narrow special interests, they lose.


wandy

(3,539 posts)
26. Not bad. I'm just not so sure about legally sound.....
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:39 PM
Jan 2013
Basically, the "trillion-dollar coin" would just allow the Treasury, which pays the country's bills, to keep writing checks regardless of what Congress does with the debt ceiling.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-trillion-dollar-coin-and-the-republican-debt-ceiling-fight-2013-1

I'm not sure the Treasury has the authority to do this.
Basically congress approves the spending of money (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022129991) and congress pays the bills. At least thats how I think it works.

On the gripping hand, it would defuse at least for now the hostage situation.
As the article points out...

It is an absurd legal gimmick that would ordinarily be the furthest thing from the minds of serious, responsible people who have been elected to lead this great country through a challenging period.
But the problem is that some of the people who have been elected to lead this country have revealed themselves to be unserious, irresponsible people.
How?
By threatening to turn the United States of America into a deadbeat nation that refuses to pay its bills.
That's right.
A handful of Republicans in Congress are threatening to refuse to allow the United States Of America to pay the bills and fulfill commitments that the United States Of America has already promised to pay and fulfill.

Anything that denies the advantage to a group of whackjobs who's ideology is solely driven by their corporate pay checks is worth trying.



 

RomneyLies

(3,333 posts)
13. Sure he can.
Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:20 PM
Jan 2013

He simply needs to keep pushing the fact that, by law, the Congress has spent the money and now they are refusing to take out a loan to pay the bill on the money they already spent.

When they demand spending cuts he can say, "We already made those cuts and they kick in next month. If you want to have a separate debate about what we cut and how much those cuts should be, we'll have that in the context of the debate about those cuts that are already set to go in place, but for now, Congress has a choice to make. Either the Congress takes out a loan to pay the bills on the money they already spent by law, or the Congress defaults on the financial obligations Congress has already incurred."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can Obama refuse to negot...