1721

This is probably something obvious, but what makes invoking the constitution an impeachable offense? Is it simply that not everyone is agreed that the 14th really says what (some) think it says? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t it require the ruling of the Supreme Court to decide?

(Why yes, I have forgotten everything I might have ever learned about US government… why do you ask?)

1722

Latest AP report:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Officials say the White House and Republican leaders in Congress are making significant progress toward a last-minute agreement to avoid a default threatened for next week.

These officials say the two sides are discussing a plan to raise the debt limit by about $2.4 trillion and enact spending cuts of a slightly larger amount in two stages.

The deal under discussion would also require Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but not require its approval.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the discussions.

1723

The debate is between section 4 and 5.

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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Some would argue that the ‘appropriate legislation’ is congress voting to raise the debt ceiling. I can see both sides but its hardly something that is set in stone so it will most certainly have to eventually be decided by the Supreme court.

1724

Hmm what Jeff posted doesn’t seem to be the end of the world. It takes out the stupid requirement for a balanced budget amendment to be passed and just requires a vote on one. It raises the limit past the elections and also cuts spending. It seems all sides get part of what they wanted.

1725

Without researching it, it seems odd how the debt ceiling is implemented. You would think that, if you have a debt ceiling that is significant enough Congress has to approve it, then Congress could not approve spending bills that went above that limit.

But it seems, in practice, that it is ignored, whatever amount Congress wants to spend gets approved, then the debt ceiling is lifted after the fact.

1726

Well, the Democrats basically give up all tax increases, including letting the cuts for the high end expire, tax loopholes and subsidies, things like taxing hedge fund managers millions per day at normal tax rates, etc. I.e. this looks like what would have been a GOP starting negotiation a month or so ago.

I.e. major win for the GOP.

Assuming they get this agreed upon, and assuming they get the votes.

1727

Yep, there is absolutely nothing but concession to the GOP there in exchange for them not destroying the country. There’s not a single Democratic goal in that agreement.

1728

Yeah but it’s probably the best deal we can hope for at this point.

Major win for GOP vs economic meltdown?

1729

So standard procedure is the GOP holds the nation hostage and the Democrats do whatever they want. Where does it stop? Why even bother having elections if the GOP either runs the show from in power or holds the nation hostage when it’s out of power?

1730

Well, there is a fundamental of people management and child rearing that you get the behavior that you reward. In this case, the GOP gets a bill that most people would have considered unattainable a couple of months ago by taking the country to the brink of default.

There has to be a way to punish these guys for this, but I’ll be damned if I can figure it out. The Tea Party and the GOP get what their supporters want in terms of the bill itself.

1731

You dont think the dropping of a requirement for a balanced budget amendment to pass for debt increases along with the debt limit increase going out beyond the elections to be setbacks for the GOP? They wanted another vote before the elections and and future increases to be tied to a passage of a balanced budget amendment.

1732

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob, not for violating the constitution. I’m not saying Obama would get convicted, or not get elected because of it, but they’re not exactly similiar situations.

It doesn’t really matter anyway - Obama won’t get reelected because the economy will still be terrible. I just hope he’s not running against Bachman.

1733

Frankly, the GOP plan clearly ruins the US in the long run, only superficially different from not accepting it. Especially since they’ll smell blood and just keep marching forward with their “compromises” while looking to spin events as the Democrats’ fault after the fact.

The time to fight this is now. Look for some other method to fix things outside Congress to alleviate the damage of course, but giving in to such hostage taking will only make matters worse. If your opponent goes All-In on crazy odds when you’re already heavily vested there’s not really any choice but to go All-In yourself and see what cards flip up.

Ultimately things are broken enough now that the only real hope is for the next election to sort things out – which is one hell of a limbo to be in. Times like these make me wish we had a parliament style dissolution and immediate re-election.

1734

It is hardly a setback when a ceiling limit raise is done as a normal course of action, you hold the economy for ransom by demanding an amendment, and then settle “merely” for the attempt at one. ANYTHING they got that was above and beyond raising the ceiling (and not via taxes) was a win for them.

But thank you for the 14th clarification :)

1735

No shit, and it’d cut down on the political adds by 90% since it’d cut down the election “season” dramatically.

1736

The 14th Amendment option would be breaking statutory law, not violating the Constitution.

1737

In much the same way that a truck driver’s speed dropping from 94 mph to 90 mph when he runs over an old lady in a walker is a “setback.”

1738

The trade-off, of course, is that they get to be the first against the wall.

The Clinton impeachment was a watershed moment; it calcified in many conservative and Republican minds the “evilness” of the Democratic party. It literally doesn’t matter to them that the whole process was a set up, and it apparently doesn’t matter to them if Republicans are doing even worse things left and right at the same time - as long as they don’t lie about it under oath . It was when the Democrats failed to prosecute Clinton when he was caught lying, and in the most obvious and laughable way, that moment when a good portion of the Republican conservative movement leapt off the rails into conspiracyville and irreconcilable hatred of the Democrats, the moment when “nothing” is sacred anymore in Washington. I’m 99% certain had there been no impeachment trial it would have been Gore, not Bush, that was elected. Republicans learned how powerful it was to control the narrative, how reality was how you made it, not what it was (because that reality is ultimately just been spun by the establishment news media). Fast forward 20 years, and reality is being craft out of whole cloth fabrication. I’m not sure what exactly to compare it to; neither German fascism nor communism seemed so… ungrounded. That is, the latter ideologies are crazy, but at least they have a framework to build upon the crazy. Here, it’s just crazy.

1739

Dropping the demand that we amend the constitution or else we won’t allow the government to pay the bills for what Congress has already passed is a “setback?” LOL! Even Boehner didn’t want that in there, some Republicans in the Senate said it was ludicrous.

If dropping that and dropping the part where we do this all again in a few months is a setback, that tells you exactly where the line was to begin with. The GOP gets spending cuts, all the rich special interests like the hedge fund managers, millionaires, corporations with special tax breaks, etc. are left untouched, not a single tax increase of any kind on anyone, and the Democrats get absolutely nothing for the people who voted them in.

I have no problem with one side getting some things and the other side getting some things, even if I don’t agree with one side, because this is a representative government and each side represents people who voted them in. That’s why we don’t have one party. Democrats should be willing to allow some Republican “gets” and Republicans should allow some Democratic “gets” because our nation isn’t all of one mind. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

But in this case, the GOP got MORE than what they were asking for a few weeks ago, and gave the Democrats nothing. And they did that by pushing the country, and likely much of the world, to the brink of an economic abyss. It is one of the most shameful exhibits I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Even the Wall Street Journal, who makes no pretense of being conservative and generally GOP leaning, stated that “Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.”

1740

As Matt Miller notes: “The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit.”

There aren’t words to express how full of shit these people are.